SET - Field studies in France part 1

Tour Bois-le-Prêtre

Palais de Tokyo

Location PARIS, FRANCE

Location Paris, France

Group 1 Casper Philip Ebbesen Emil Göhns Andreas Holmøy Ilstad Sidsel Petersen Nora Ødegård

Group 2 Niels Christian Zipelius Mari Hancock Bjerknes Andreas Skytt Hvid Nicolai Daniel Christensen Thea Marvik Brg

LOGEMENTS ÉTUDIANTS & SOCIAUX Location Rue de Thionville & Rue de l’Orque, 19th arrondissement, Paris Group 3 Amanda Andresen Nathalie Wathne Nicolai Espensen Rasmus Feddersen

Field studies in France

53 habitations HLM Location Saint Nazaire, France Group 4-5 Oliver Mogensen Mathias Skjold Larsen Joachim Makholm Michelsen Johan Emil Engelbrecht Vindnæs Sarah Sonne Glatz Sara Kristine Casey Magnus Aamund Lind

Year 2017

23 logements 1&2

Transformation d’un immeuble de logements

Location Trignac, France Group 8 + 9 Tobias Jansson Magnus Henum Kasper Prochownik Marianne Ystenes Gjørtz Julie Meiland Hansen

I

Erling Aleksander Nybråten Marie Hvidaa Hjørnholm Mette Tange Dahl Tim Bruun

A

Location SAINT NAIZARE, FRANCE Group 6 + 7 LENA BARKA REBECKA PETERSEN CHRISTINE KJERRUMGAARD RASMUS SCHATTER CARL-JOHAN ROSENKÆR JULIE ZEPERNICK JENSEN TONE IDA VECHT JOHAN STENBECK OLIVER LEHRMANN

A

Program Settlement, Ecology & Tectonics, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture

Ecole d’architecture de Nantes Location Nantes, France Group 10 + 11 Emil Bruun Meyer Marianne Rudkjøbing Moth Anton Xerxes Boman Agnes Garnow

Ecole D’architecture Immeuble de bureaux Nantes Location Nantes, France

Group 12 Jon Grasdal Sanna Movafagh Casper Ravn Helene Skotte Wied

Founders: Ministère de la culture et de la communication Location: Nantes, France

Mathilde Schelde Pedersen Marie Morsing Jacobsen Jonas Palmbeck Ottosen Kim Pörösei Camille Tan

Group 10 & 11: Emil Bruun Meyer Agnes Garnow Anton Xerxes Boman Marianne Rudkjøbing Moth

Tour Bois-le-Prêtre Location PARIS, FRANCE Group 1 Casper Philip Ebbesen Emil Göhns Andreas Holmøy Ilstad Sidsel Petersen Nora Ødegård

COLOPHON Editorial & layout: Anne Beim, Erling Aleksander Nybråten & Helene Skotte Wied Programme Direction: Frans Drewniak & Anne Beim Authors: Casper Philip Ebbesen, Emil Göhns, Andreas Holmøy Ilstad, Sidsel Petersen, Nora Ødegård Published by: The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation Masters programe - Settlement, Ecology and Tectonics Institute of Architecture and Tecnology Philip de Langes Alle 10 DK- 1435 Copenhagen K Denmark ISBN: 978-87-7830-981-5

Table of Content Field studies in France

2

Case study

4

Drawing Index 10 Site plan 11 Facade 12 Sections 16 Isometric drawings 20 Plan drawings 24

Field Studies in France In the autumn of 2017, students from the graduate program Settlement, Ecology & Tectonics (SET), at The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts - School of Architecture, travelled to France to study selected works by the French architects Anne Lacaton & Jean Phillip Vassal. The field studies were meant to give insights into French building culture in order to form the backdrop for critical discussions about present-day building culture in Denmark. The themes Generosity and Everyday Architecture were to be studied by looking at how Lacaton & Vassal worked with these elements in their architecture. As part of the site visits, Lacaton & Vassal arranged for us to talk to key people who had been involved in the building projects, and we also had the opportunity to talk to residents and owners. Some of the students’ work includes interviews and studies into how the users inhabit their living spaces and how their daily lives unfold. Photo registration, daylight analyses and reconstruction of building parts in scale models have added new layers to the understanding of the lived life in the architecture of Lacaton & Vassal.

About this publication This publication is one out of nine booklets that together present the students’ analyses across nine buildings.

Some of the building projects have been studied by two groups, and these are collected in one booklet. The nine booklets are meant to form the basis for future architectural studies at graduate level, but we also hope that the work will act as a source of inspiration for fellow architects and the soon-to-be architects, who completed this stimulating work.

Generosity and everyday architecture What is meant by creating generous architecture for ordinary life? How can architecture contribute to nourishing people’s well-being, and how are the cities and buildings that we as architects envision and give architectural form to used or inhabited? These questions have been the core elements of the fieldwork and have followed the study projects throughout the year.

To create architecture that aims to embody a generous gesture requires a deep understanding of how social and cultural settings form the physical framework for our daily lives and vice versa. Through detailed studies of which elements (phenomenological or physical) add to create quality in everyday life, we architects may be enabled to

construct a responsive architecture that offers better living conditions in a multitude of ways. It may be a nice spot for reading that is showered in daylight, extra space for a young or old family member or a suitable space for a social get-together. This sort of attention may contribute to distinct settings for nourishing social life that should form the core part of architectural spaces: our built environment and urban spaces.

In Denmark, there is a strong tradition to focus on everyday architecture and to create architectural quality that is not only meant for pricy prestigious buildings but also for the general residential sector and social housing. It is an art to envision architectural quality and to make generous architectural spaces when you are limited by very small budgets. In this case, to be generous is about “getting more out of less”, showing benevolence and care at all levels and giving something back to the community and to the individual. Among other things, generosity appears as “something that offers more” than what was expected or what existed before.

The studies Anne Lacaton & Jean Phillip Vassal often use the concept of “generosity” to describe their architectural intentions. They have a clear desire to improve the well-being of the user, especially in socially vulnerable residential areas, providing them spacious housing and optimal living qualities such as spatial flexibility or a good indoor climate. Qualities like these have been realized in spite of fairly limited budgets, and therefore the tectonic aspects of the projects have been worked with very intentionally.

The students worked in 12 small groups (4–5 people), where each group was given one of Lacaton & Vassal’s projects in Paris, Nantes or Saint-Nazaire. Based on a joint research design, they prepared and conducted investigations into how the concept of generosity is reflected in the various buildings. In this way, they mapped a wide range of Lacaton & Vassal’s projects and thus provided a common basis for the following work. Also, they gained insight into Lacaton & Vassal’s special way of thinking and working with architecture.

Prior to the field studies, there was two weeks of preparatory studies. While visiting the architectural sites, each group had half a day to record and investigate their construction.

Research design Based on the joint research design, the collection of knowledge from the individual site visits becomes part of the larger project concerning generosity and everyday architecture. The whole group is thus working on sub-elements that feed into an overall mapping of Lacaton & Vassal’s approach to architecture. In that sense, a collective archive is generated.

The research design consists of four main elements: 1. Initial studies Generosity represented in the building environment (target groups and building typologies) - Description of the idea of the building through studies of drawing material and written sources (books, articles, websites etc.)

- Also, the following questions are to be addressed: Who is the building built for and who has built it? In what way does the project include the urban and social context? Is it a project with a limited budget or what other limitations have set the framework for construction? What is the architect’s strategy to create a generous architecture?

2. Generosity represented in the tectonic process (specification of basic principles/building methods) The purpose of this part is to map and discuss how the architectural approach can be read in the construction.

The analysis focuses on the tectonic aspects and how the building tells the story of its creation. What choices have the architects made to support their vision of the building and how is it reflected in the choice of materials and construction.

The analysis consists of three parts: - The load-bearing structure: its structural logics and principles, its readability, material characteristics.

- The facade/building envelope: its materiality, how it influences the indoor climate, daylight, ventilation and thermal conditions, the correlation of the facade and the load-bearing structure.

- Installations: how do they form part of the architectural design (visible/hidden), how do they correlate to the building structures? Do they work “with or against” the architectural concept?

3. Studies on-site Generosity found in the individual residence These studies look at the architectural strategies as experienced in the very building. They fall in two parts: one focuses on the individual housing unit and the other on the common space of the building.

Each group has chosen a topic they want to work with.

This may be a tectonic or a social phenomenon (e.g. the importance of the material selection for the residence’s interior design). There are many options and each group develops a research design that describes how they will approach the selected themes; in other words, a statement of how to study WHAT. The core of the research design is therefore a critical discussion of why the chosen methods are relevant to the topic of investigation. There is freedom in choice of methodologies.

4. Generosity found in the common space of the building (inside and outside) As in the study of the individual housing unit, in this part, each group develops a research design based on their chosen topic. This study focuses on the shared spatial environment in addition to the individual housing unit (e.g. the garden areas, the yard and other common facilities).

After the study trip, all the material has been collected and edited to be presented in these booklets, including text, photographs, drawings and other sorts of material. Altogether, we are proud to present the final outcome.

Frans Drewniak, Ulrik Stylsvig Madsen and Anne Beim

Case / Tour Bois-Le-Prêtre Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Competition: 2005 Transformation 2011 Size: 8900 m2 + 3560 m2 extension Storeys: 17 Building company: Paris Habitat Cost: 11,25 million € The transformation of Tour Bois-Le-Prêtre Founded in 1914, Paris Habitat is the largest public company for social housing in France. It manages 124,000 social housing units in and around Paris and provides housing for more than 310,000 residents. Paris Habitat operates in three main areas: renovation of urban buildings, renovation and maintenance of the properties and improvement of the social context and proximity.

Paris Habitat is a public company associated with the municipality of Paris and is under the supervision of the government in order to align and control its management.

The transformation project of Tour Bois-le-Prêtre was part of the Great Urban Renewal Project (GPRU), founded in 2002. The tower building is situated in Port Pouchet, in the 17th arrondissement of Paris, which has been considered a poor area with social problems and high crime rates.

Special limitations One of the most crucial requirements for the realization of the transformation project was that the residents had to be able to stay in the building during the renovation.

Paris Habitat commits to letting every tenant stay in their own apartment during the renovation. In some cases, residents could come back in the evening, having stayed in a different apartment during the day.

Building tectonics - Existing structural principles The load-bearing structure of the building, originally constructed in 1960, has been retained through both transformations. The construction consists of prefabricated concrete walls that span in the transverse and longitudinal direction of the building. An elevator is placed in the middle. The transverse walls are in a module per 7.5 m, where the longitudinal walls to the corridor have a modular distance of 2.5 m. This, together with the concrete slabs in the floor, separates the building’s primary structure. The static principle, a slab and plate system, allows facades to be completed as filling facades and are therefore not part of the building’s supporting elements.

Structural principle The 2011 addition is a separate load-bearing construction.

It is made of a pre-fabricated column and beam system in steel. The beams are anchored to the existing concrete slabs, and these then work as the stabilizing element of the secondary construction. The measurements of the addition are 3 x 7.5 m, where 2 meters is the winter garden and the final meter is the outdoor balcony.

Materials Inside the winter gardens, which don’t have heating, the load-bearing structure is covered in polished aluminum, which gives the impression of being inside a cave. The beams below the winter garden are part of the floor, which is why they aren’t visible. The slabs are fiber concrete, with a polished aluminum ceiling; they clearly define the floor separation, compared to the previous facade.

Spatial layout The transformation has had no impact on the existing load-bearing structure. In a few places, walls have been torn down to merge apartments in order to allow for more space and therefore for larger families to move into the tower. Also, one-bedroom apartments have been turned into studio apartments using drywalls.

All apartments on the north gable are expanded by 22 or 40 m2. This is also done by use of a load-bearing pillarand-beam system, with new construction slabs added as reinforcement.

The expansion creates a new building that differs from other buildings from that time period by becoming asymmetrical in plan and facade, and thereby becoming contemporary (ed.).

The facades Building envelope (existing conditions) The original facades were layered in a horizontal pattern with closed and open bands that related to the displacement of the floors. The closed bands formed the parapets and were made as lightweight cassettes, where the open bands were windows with frames in white PVC. Building envelope (new conditions) The building envelope is constructed as a double facade, consisting of a primary and a secondary layer. The outer and secondary part of the building envelope divides the

balcony and the winter garden. The winter garden can be closed with sliding sections, with polished aluminum frames and either single-glazed windows or transparent polycarbonate corrugated boards.

The primary part of the building envelope divides the heated and unheated parts of the housing, and it consists of floor-to-ceiling sliding sections with double-layered double-glazed windows and polished aluminum frames.

In both facade layers, curtains are included as part of the building envelope. There are two types of curtains, a thermal curtain that relies on the primary building envelope and a reflective sun curtain that relates to the secondary building envelope.

Conditions between inside and outside The impact of the double building envelope solution on the inside and out are many. Acoustically, it contributes to the reduction of traffic noise from the surrounding roads, especially from the busy ring road. Internally, the thermal curtains act as noise absorbers that reduce the reverberation from the traffic noise.

The double building envelope acts as a buffer zone in relation to the regulation of heat and temperatures in the home. The thermal curtain retains the heat in the winter.

The amount of daylight in the homes has changed significantly due to the transformation. The intake of daylight has been improved in the part of the home that is close to the façade. But the far end of the rooms has become much darker due to the total depth of the expansion being 3 m. The sun curtains reflect the rays of the sun, but allow the light to penetrate. The dual building envelope filters the light through transparent and translucent layers that diffuse the daylight.

The air supply to the homes is controlled manually by the individual residents, so the air quality depends on the users. Regulation of the natural air supply is done by opening or closing the sliding doors of the primary and secondary building envelope. Vents are placed in the kitchen, in the WC and in the bath rooms, so this has to be improved, as all apartments have an open connection between the kitchen and living room.

“The idea is that someone who leaves their apartment to go to work closes the curtains. As a result, the living rooms remain warm in winter and they do not heat up in summer, as the thermal curtains protect against direct solar radiation. This analogous facade performance allows the tenants to save 50 percent in heating costs, compared to the previous situation.” (Ruby, Ilka m.fl., 2012) Building installations The original building installations in the residential apartment building have never played a big role in the architecture of the building, and most of the installations have been hidden in vertical ventilation shafts that run up through the building.

The architects have not had any influence on these building installations during the transformation, because most of the changes have been made to the facades of the building. Although the apartment plans have been modified to increase apartment typologies in the building, the original load-bearing structure is preserved and therefore also the shafts that are located adjacent to the supporting partition walls.

Subject of investigation New user patterns in the individual apartments The investigations were planned to focus on the way in which the new facades and apartment types have affected the use of the apartments by the residents.

Communication between architect and resident The architects thought of both spatial quality and ways of use, in addition to the facade.

- Have these essentials been communicated to the users?

- Is detailed communication necessary for optimal use?

- To what degree have the residents been part of the planning process up to the transformation?

- Have the residents been instructed in how the new facades affect (change) the indoor climate of their apartment – and are the façade elements, curtains, sliding doors and different climate zones being used?

The common areas - Are the new user patterns observed in the facade?

How does the new face express itself – and what sort of implications does the apartment tower and its facades have for its surroundings?

Research design To answer these questions, two types of research have been completed during our stay in Paris.

Interviews and visits In the first part of the research, we sought out residents and encouraged them to fill out a questionnaire that we had prepared in advance. The questions referred to their apartment before and after the transformation. The themes in the questionnaire focused on indoor climate, user patterns and user involvement. Also, we visited at least one apartment to make observations relating to the themes.

Results None of the inhabitants that were questioned had received instructions in how to use the thermal- and solar curtains.

Some of the inhabitants answered they had participated in the planning process which was voluntary.

The user patterns were noticeable in the facade: the curtains were visible behind the glass panels and the transparent materials of the balcony reveal the furniture and users.

Also, we observed an increase in indoor light quality,

decrease in thermal quality and no experienced change in acoustic quality nor air quality.

Observation of the facade through a sequence of photos The second part of the research consisted of a photo registration of the facade over a four-hour period of time.

This was executed in order to find out how visible the residents’ activities are to the surroundings.

Results Activities were observed in the facade. Few habitants used their balconies to observe the surroundings.

The facade is visible from afar since there are no close neighbors. In that sense the apartment tower effects an extensive area.

References Ruby, Ilka and Ruby, Andreas. 2012. Druot, Lacaton & Vassal, Tour Bois Le Prêtre. Berlin: Ruby Press.

Drawing Index 01.01 Site plan 1:2000 01.02 Facade east 1:200 01.03 Facade west 1:200 01.04 Facade south 1:200 01.05 Facade north 1:200 01.06 Cross section 1:200 01.07 Longiyudinal section

1:200

01.08 Detail section vertival

1:50

01.09 Detail section horisontal

1:50

01.10 Assembly 01.11 Exploded isometri 01.12 Apartment typoligies 01.13 Apartment isometric 01.14 Original ground floor plan

1:200

01.15 New ground floor plan

1:200

01.16 Original storey plan

1:200

01.17 New storey plan

1:200

Tour Bois-Le-PrĂŞtre

03.01 01.01

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Site plan

1:5000 1:200

11

Tour Bois le Prêtre Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Facade north

1:200

Tour Bois-Le-Prêtre

03.05 01.02

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Facade north

1:200

15

Tour Bois le Prêtre Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Facade east

1:200

Tour Bois-Le-Prêtre

03.02 01.03

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Facade east

12

1:200

Tour Bois le Prêtre Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Facade south

1:200

Tour Bois-Le-Prêtre

03.04 01.04

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Facade south

14

1:200

Tour Bois le Prêtre Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Facade west

1:200

Tour Bois-Le-Prêtre

03.03 01.05

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Facade west

1:200

13

Tour Bois le Prêtre Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Cross section

1:200

Tour Bois-Le-Prêtre

03.06 01.06

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Cross section

16

1:200

Tour Bois le Prêtre Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Longitudinal section

1:200

Tour Bois-Le-Prêtre

01.07 03.07

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Longitudinal section

1:200

17

1

UPN 300 column

2

Connection to the existing slab

3

HEA 220 beam

4

Winter garden’s floor: - fibre-cement slab (25mm) - seperation layer - galvanized steel corrugated sheeting (55mm) - HEA 100 beam / rock wool thermal insulation (80mm) - fibre-cement slab (35mm) - suspended ceiling: micre-perforated aluminum sheeting and mineral wool insulation (35mm)

5

Balcony’s floor: - finishing and inclination screed 1% - UPA 100 squared profiles - Fibre-cement slab (25mm) - aluminum suspended ceiling

6

Parapet: - Safety glass and aluminum handrail (100x40mm)

7

Transparent enclosure: - with aluminum frame with thermal break and insulating glass

8

Winter garden transparent enclosure: - glass or polycarbonate (18mm)

1

7

8

6

5

3

4 2

1

UPN 300 column

2

Connection to the existing slab

3

HEA 220 beam

4

Winter garden’s floor: - fibre-cement slab (25mm) - seperation layer - galvanized steel corrugated sheeting (55mm) - HEA 100 beam / rock wool thermal insulation (80mm) - fibre-cement slab (35mm) - suspended ceiling: micre-perforated aluminum sheeting and mineral wool insulation (35mm)

5

Balcony’s floor: - finishing and inclination screed 1% - UPA 100 squared profiles - Fibre-cement slab (25mm) - aluminum suspended ceiling

6

Parapet: - Safety glass and aluminum handrail (100x40mm)

7

Transparent enclosure: - with aluminum frame with thermal break and insulating glass

8

Winter garden transparent enclosure: - glass or polycarbonate (18mm)

1

7

8

Tour Bois le Prêtre Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011

6

Detail section

5

3

1:20

4 2

Tour Bois-Le-Prêtre

03.08 01.08

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Vertical section

18

1:50

Tour Bois-Le-PrĂŞtre

03.09 01.09

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Horisontal section

1:50

19

1 The original facade 2 The original facade element is removed 3 The facade now stands completely open 4 The new sliding doors with safetyguards is mounted 5 The new balcony element is put in place by crane, and the safety guards is removed 6 The balcony element secured and ready for final assembly 1

7 The final sliding doors with glass and polycarbonate finishes is installed

2

3

4

5

6

7

Tour Bois le PrĂŞtre Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Facade mounting

Tour Bois-Le-PrĂŞtre Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Assembly

20

03.10 01.10

Tour Bois-Le-PrĂŞtre

03.11 01.11

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Exploded isometric

1:40

21

Tour Bois-Le-PrĂŞtre Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Appartment typologies

22

03.12 01.12

Tour Bois-Le-PrĂŞtre

01.13 03.13

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Appartment isometric

23

Tour Bois-Le-PrĂŞtre

03.14 01.14

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Original ground floor plan

24

1:200

Tour Bois-Le-PrĂŞtre

03.15 01.15

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 New ground floor plan

1:200

25

Tour Bois-Le-PrĂŞtre

03.16 01.16

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Original storey plan

26

1:200

Tour Bois-Le-PrĂŞtre

03.17 01.17

Architects: Drout, Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 New storey plan

1:200

27

Palais de Tokyo Location Paris, France Group 2 Niels Christian Zipelius Mari Hancock Bjerknes Andreas Skytt Hvid Nicolai Daniel Christensen Thea Marvik Brg

COLOPHON Editorial & layout: Anne Beim, Erling Aleksander NybrĂĽten & Helene Skotte Wied Programme Direction: Frans Drewniak & Anne Beim Authors: Niels Christian Zipelius, Mari Hancock Bjerknes, Andreas Skytt Hvid, Nicolai Daniel Christiensen & Thea Marvik Berg Published by: The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation Masters programe - Settlement, Ecology and Tectonics Institute of Architecture and Tecnology Philip de Langes Alle 10 DK- 1435 Copenhagen K Denmark ISBN: 978-87-7830-981-5

Table of Content Field studies in France

2

Case study

4

Drawing Index 10 Site plan 11 Timeline 12 Plans 14 Original Drawings 16 Section A-A 18 Section B-B

22

Section C-C

26

Bibliography 33

Field Studies in France In the autumn of 2017, students from the graduate program Settlement, Ecology & Tectonics (SET), at The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts - School of Architecture, travelled to France to study selected works by the French architects Anne Lacaton & Jean Phillip Vassal. The field studies were meant to give insights into French building culture in order to form the backdrop for critical discussions about present-day building culture in Denmark. The themes Generosity and Everyday Architecture were to be studied by looking at how Lacaton & Vassal worked with these elements in their architecture. As part of the site visits, Lacaton & Vassal arranged for us to talk to key people who had been involved in the building projects, and we also had the opportunity to talk to residents and owners. Some of the students’ work includes interviews and studies into how the users inhabit their living spaces and how their daily lives unfold. Photo registration, daylight analyses and reconstruction of building parts in scale models have added new layers to the understanding of the lived life in the architecture of Lacaton & Vassal.

About this publication This publication is one out of nine booklets that together present the students’ analyses across nine buildings.

Some of the building projects have been studied by two groups, and these are collected in one booklet. The nine booklets are meant to form the basis for future architectural studies at graduate level, but we also hope that the work will act as a source of inspiration for fellow architects and the soon-to-be architects, who completed this stimulating work.

Generosity and everyday architecture What is meant by creating generous architecture for ordinary life? How can architecture contribute to nourishing people’s well-being, and how are the cities and buildings that we as architects envision and give architectural form to used or inhabited? These questions have been the core elements of the fieldwork and have followed the study projects throughout the year.

To create architecture that aims to embody a generous gesture requires a deep understanding of how social and cultural settings form the physical framework for our daily lives and vice versa. Through detailed studies of which elements (phenomenological or physical) add to create quality in everyday life, we architects may be enabled to

construct a responsive architecture that offers better living conditions in a multitude of ways. It may be a nice spot for reading that is showered in daylight, extra space for a young or old family member or a suitable space for a social get-together. This sort of attention may contribute to distinct settings for nourishing social life that should form the core part of architectural spaces: our built environment and urban spaces.

In Denmark, there is a strong tradition to focus on everyday architecture and to create architectural quality that is not only meant for pricy prestigious buildings but also for the general residential sector and social housing. It is an art to envision architectural quality and to make generous architectural spaces when you are limited by very small budgets. In this case, to be generous is about “getting more out of less”, showing benevolence and care at all levels and giving something back to the community and to the individual. Among other things, generosity appears as “something that offers more” than what was expected or what existed before.

The studies Anne Lacaton & Jean Phillip Vassal often use the concept of “generosity” to describe their architectural intentions. They have a clear desire to improve the well-being of the user, especially in socially vulnerable residential areas, providing them spacious housing and optimal living qualities such as spatial flexibility or a good indoor climate. Qualities like these have been realized in spite of fairly limited budgets, and therefore the tectonic aspects of the projects have been worked with very intentionally.

The students worked in 12 small groups (4–5 people), where each group was given one of Lacaton & Vassal’s projects in Paris, Nantes or Saint-Nazaire. Based on a joint research design, they prepared and conducted investigations into how the concept of generosity is reflected in the various buildings. In this way, they mapped a wide range of Lacaton & Vassal’s projects and thus provided a common basis for the following work. Also, they gained insight into Lacaton & Vassal’s special way of thinking and working with architecture.

Prior to the field studies, there was two weeks of preparatory studies. While visiting the architectural sites, each group had half a day to record and investigate their construction.

Research design Based on the joint research design, the collection of knowledge from the individual site visits becomes part of the larger project concerning generosity and everyday architecture. The whole group is thus working on sub-elements that feed into an overall mapping of Lacaton & Vassal’s approach to architecture. In that sense, a collective archive is generated.

The research design consists of four main elements: 1. Initial studies Generosity represented in the building environment (target groups and building typologies) - Description of the idea of the building through studies of drawing material and written sources (books, articles, websites etc.)

- Also, the following questions are to be addressed: Who is the building built for and who has built it? In what way does the project include the urban and social context? Is it a project with a limited budget or what other limitations have set the framework for construction? What is the architect’s strategy to create a generous architecture?

2. Generosity represented in the tectonic process (specification of basic principles/building methods) The purpose of this part is to map and discuss how the architectural approach can be read in the construction.

The analysis focuses on the tectonic aspects and how the building tells the story of its creation. What choices have the architects made to support their vision of the building and how is it reflected in the choice of materials and construction.

The analysis consists of three parts: - The load-bearing structure: its structural logics and principles, its readability, material characteristics.

- The facade/building envelope: its materiality, how it influences the indoor climate, daylight, ventilation and thermal conditions, the correlation of the facade and the load-bearing structure.

- Installations: how do they form part of the architectural design (visible/hidden), how do they correlate to the building structures? Do they work “with or against” the architectural concept?

3. Studies on-site Generosity found in the individual residence These studies look at the architectural strategies as experienced in the very building. They fall in two parts: one focuses on the individual housing unit and the other on the common space of the building.

Each group has chosen a topic they want to work with.

This may be a tectonic or a social phenomenon (e.g. the importance of the material selection for the residence’s interior design). There are many options and each group develops a research design that describes how they will approach the selected themes; in other words, a statement of how to study WHAT. The core of the research design is therefore a critical discussion of why the chosen methods are relevant to the topic of investigation. There is freedom in choice of methodologies.

4. Generosity found in the common space of the building (inside and outside) As in the study of the individual housing unit, in this part, each group develops a research design based on their chosen topic. This study focuses on the shared spatial environment in addition to the individual housing unit (e.g. the garden areas, the yard and other common facilities).

After the study trip, all the material has been collected and edited to be presented in these booklets, including text, photographs, drawings and other sorts of material. Altogether, we are proud to present the final outcome.

Frans Drewniak, Ulrik Stylsvig Madsen and Anne Beim

Field study in France Case / Palais De Tokyo

Palais de Tokyo has throughout its history housed many different programs and functions. Palais de Tokyo was built in 1937 and designed by the leading beaux-art architects, Dondel, Aubert, Viard and Dastugue, it was the french contribution to the World Expo, build as a museum of contemporary art and Background and context technical The Palaisinventions. de Tokyo has throughout its history housed Furthermore building designed holdde to Tomany differentthe programs andwas functions.

ThetoPalais kyo wasexpositions built in 1937thus andhaving designed the leading distinct twoby wings, a westbeaux-art architects, and an east wing. Dondel, Aubert, Viard and Dastugue.

It was the French contribution to the World Expo, built as a museum for contemporary art and technical inventions.

Following the World Expo the building was taken Furthermore, the building was designed to hold two disinto as contemporary arttwo museum bothand the an tinct use expositions thus having wings, for a west Commune east wing. of Paris (Musee d’art moderne de la Ville

failed transformation. An opportunity the architects Lacaton & Vassal saw great potential in and used to design the ‘new’ Museum, Palais de Tokyo.

With the great potential came an even smaller budget, a mere 16 million euro, 3 million to the first phase, 13 million to the second.

The architects Lacaton & Vassal saw great potential in Nonetheless the budget never a problem this opportunity and used it forbecame their design of the “new” rather it became a great contributor, as the budget Museum, the Palais de Tokyo. only allowed for minimum changes. Thus Lacaton & With changed the great nothing potential came an even smaller budget, Vassal but what was absolutely ne- a mere 16 million euro, 3 million to the first phase, 13 million cessary, and the necessary was to make the building to the second. Nonetheless, the budget never became a habitable ruin i.e the repairment of columns, floors, a problem, rather it became a “great contributor”, as the ventilation and electric budget only allowed for installations. minimum changes. Thus, Lacaton With that changed starting point Vassal’ & Vassal nothingLacaton but only&what wasinabsolutely tention was toand create open andwas functional necessary, the necessary to makespaces, the building a “habitable ruin”, i.e. the refurbishment of columns, floors, mimicking market squares(Djemaa El-Fna market, ventilation and electric installations.

Marrakesh), where the visitor and art in collaboration create the experience.

With this starting point Lacaton & Vassal’s intention was Furthermore it is was important for Lacaton & Vasto create open and functional spaces, mimicking market salsquares to amplifier the existing urban and social qualities (Djemaa El-Fna market, Marrakesh), where the of visitor Palaisand de Tokyo.

This is seencreate through the open and art in collaboration the experience. extremely functional and changeable building plan, Furthermore, it was importanturban, for Lacaton & honest Vassal to and by clarifying the intrinsic raw and amplify the urban vis anda vis social the Pasensations of existing the building thequalities market of square. lais de Tokyo. This was seen by use of an open and exIt is also seen in the connection between the outside tremely functional and changeable building plan, and by plaza and the of Palais Tokyo, they so- of clarifying the interior intrinsic urban, rawde and honestassensations mehow seem to continuation of one another The in the building vis be a vis the market square.

It is also -seen the connection theand outside plaza andofthe interior a vibrantbetween ‘’market’’ urban place art,interior the Palais de aTokyo, as place they somehow seem to be a theofoutside plaza vibrant of urban activities continuation of one another.

The interior being a vibrant such as skating, chess and casual meetings. “market” and urban place of art, the outside plaza being In many ways the transformation Lacaton & Vassal a vibrant place of urban activities, such as skating, chess made quite unconventional as they saw the and was casual meetings. museum in a completely different way, away from the white and black conventions.

In many ways, box the finished transformation by Lacaton & Vassal was quite unconventional, asLacaton they saw&the museThis is particularly seen in the way vassal um in a completely different contrast to the white administered the budget to away, pointin where it became and black box conventions. This is particularly exposed in the point of reference to the buildings’ expression, the way Lacaton & Vassal administered the budget where and at the same time,ofa reference statementtoofthe how museums it became the point building’s exprescansion be and orchestrated.

But it is also seen be reintroduat the same time a statement of how museums cing qualities found the seen spacesin of Palais candaylight be orchestrated.

But it isinalso reintroducing found in thebreathe, spaces change of the Palais dedaylight Tokyo, qualities letting the spaces as thede Tokyo, letting the spaces breathe, change as the weather weather changes and not confining them into black and not themimmense into blackpossibilior white boxor changes white boxes.

It isconfining seen in the es. It is seen in the immense possibilities of curating and tieschanging of curating and changing the spaces in Palais de the spaces in the Palais de Tokyo.

Tokyo.

T S K

de Paris) and the French state(Musee National d’art After the World Expo, themoderne building was use as moderne).

Musee d’art de lataken Villeinto de Paris a contemporary artwing museum for bothNational the Commune was given the east and Musee d’art of Paris (Musee d’art Moderne de la Ville de Paris) and the moderne the west wing. As the Musee National d’art French State (Musee National d’art Moderne). Musee moderne was relocated to Paris Centre pompidou the west d’art Moderne de la Ville de was given the east wing wing has since then been host of different functions and Musee National d’art Moderne the west wing. As the and programs.

Musee National d’art Moderne was relocated at Centre

TE

P O

E T DA

Pompidou, the west wing has since then been hosting differentspeaking functionsabout and programs.

When speaking about When Palais de Tokyo, it is actually the west Palaiswing de Tokyo, it is actually west wing the of the complex thatthe is referred to, of thethe complex that is referred to – now housing the museum of museum of contemporary art. contemporary art.

Palais de Tokyo - museum of contemporary art - is aThe product unsuccessful of art the- is Palaisof deanTokyo - museumtransformation of contemporary a product anaunsuccessful transformation of As the the west west wing of into cinematheque in the 1990’s. wing into a ‘cinematheque’ As the transformation was stoppedininthethe1990s. late 1990’s antransformation was stopped in the late 1990s an opportunity opportunity arose to create a new type of extremearose to create a new type of extremely functional/changly functional/changeable museum in the ruins of a eable museum in the ruins of a failed transformation.

Palais de Tokyo seen from the air.

S E R

ts o

st

& eg ors, TOP: Djemaa El-Fna market, Marrakesh

, i-

sies nd , est re. de oThe

sal

the

al e

s u-

k

e

MIDDLE: Section by Lacaton & Vassal, BUTTOM: Skylights on Palais de Tokyo

In the project of the Palais de Tokyo, one could say that Lacaton & Vassal have been able to manifest how a low-budget transformation can lead to an extremely generous and changeable museum. It has become a museum that in its generousness has created a workshop of modern art and creativity Tectonic analysis The original load-bearing structure of the Palais de Tokyo is a construction of columns and beams made of reinforced concrete, which were cast on-site at the construction in 1937. A number of interventions were carried out in the load-bearing structure as part of the two renovations in 2000–2002 and 2012–2014. The initial renovation was originally intended as a temporary intervention and only included the entrance of the building, the main staircase and the 2nd floor.

In the second phase of renovation, the construction of the remaining floors was stabilized by discreetly reinforcing and repairing the existing columns and adding a few new columns. The remaining existing floor plates were also repaired. Decorative marble slabs that were broken around the main interior staircase walls were preserved by reinforcing them with concrete. The interior of the building is generally characterized by the raw aesthetics of the load-bearing structure. The exposed technical installations allow the free-standing concrete pillars and ceilings to be visible.

The outer facade has been preserved with only a few additions. The 7-meter-high main entrance has been adjusted to comply with today’s fire safety requirements but is otherwise untouched as a symbol of how today’s architecture and expectations for a building have changed.

Furthermore, a few new openings and entrances have been made in the building. Walkways and fire escapes have been added to ensure the necessary escape routes and accessibility. These relatively lightweight structures contrast the monumentality of the existing building, and they emphasize the temporary nature of the way the Palais de Tokyo operates.

Lacaton & Vassal’s approach to the project was initially to do as little as possible. However, they chose to make a few but important interventions with regard to the indoor climate. In daytime, the building can be sufficiently illuminated with natural light. It was therefore important to maintain this quality and get as much daylight in the building as possible. Therefore, a large portion of the otherwise small budget was used for this purpose. The skylights were refurbished and several glass windows were replaced with polycarbonate windows.

Certain areas in the building were equipped with sensors and motors. These automatically open windows when there is a need for ventilation and lower plastic curtain sunscreens when the sunlight becomes too intense. This means that the building does not require mechanical ventilation. Lacaton & Vassal were able to provide calculations for the number of openings required to the outside to ensure sufficient fresh air without mechanical ventilation installations. This indoor climate solution was borrowed from the greenhouse industry and developed with price and reliability in mind.

The ceilings are left raw, with other installations exposed such as the electricity wiring and water pipes. Throughout the building, Lacaton & Vassal have decided to install sprinklers and fittings with fluorescent tubes attached to elegant metal lattices. They have chosen to have a basic lighting, which helps to emphasize the raw and rugged expression of the Palais de Tokyo.

Palais de Tokyo interior

9

Curating / Palais de Tokyo In their proposal for the renovation of the Palais de Tokyo, Lacaton & Vassal had a lot of ideas about how the space should function and be curated. They wanted the space to function as an open and ever-changing place where artists would have the freedom to work and exhibit their art. We will try to compare the Palais de Tokyo to other museums that each have their own distinct approach to what kind of space is best suited for modern art.

In his 1980 BBC television series, the art critic Robert Hughes says that the Centre Pompidou is: “The archetype and supreme example of everything a museum should not be.” By this he meant that it is so flexible that when everything is possible everywhere in the building, the flexibility almost becomes a burden. The curators have no constraints to work with. One could say that they have to come up with the context as well as the content every time they put up an exhibition or a show.

A museum exhibiting only art is actually a fairly recent invention. In the beginning, the buildings were usually tailored to a specific collection and made to enhance the pieces of art that were meant to be on display. In the 20th century, the growing diversity in art led to the curators desiring more neutral spaces. This gave birth to what is known as “the white cube paradigm”, where the ideal of a museum or a gallery was to provide as neutral a setting as possible for the art so that the art itself was in focus and nothing in the surroundings would affect or interfere with the experience. In recent years, a variation of this principle has emerged for exhibiting media art called “the black cube”. Here, the ideal of “the neutral space” is the same, but the space is only for showing visual projections and mixed media installations. In this case, black will often be considered the most neutral color.

In comparison, the Palais de Tokyo promises the same kind of flexibility as the Centre Pompidou, but in reality it is much more restricted. This is mainly because it is an existing building that has been stripped down to the load-bearing structure and therefore still retains some boundaries and limitations. This gives the curators the much-needed context to work within.

Another ideal concerning designing spaces for art is “the flexible container”. Here, the goal is to give the curators as much flexibility as possible. This approach was explored

by Cedric Price in his Fun Palace project, conceived in 1964, which was never realized. It has however influenced a lot of architects. Lacaton & Vassal have also mentioned it as a source of inspiration.

Centre Pompidou Another project that was heavily influenced by the ideals of the Fun Palace concept was the Centre Pompidou, designed in 1977 by the architectural team of Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano. Their proposal was to create an ever-changing institution in an isotropic space, meaning a space that is uniform in all directions and therefore has the maximum flexibility throughout the building. By doing this, the building could accommodate all thinkable kinds of art and cultural activities. This was achieved by making huge, open, high-ceilinged spaces supported only by the facades, thereby eliminating internal loadbearing walls or columns.

Temporary Contemporary The strategy of stripping a building down and leaving it in its raw state is not something Lacaton & Vassal have invented. It has also been used by Frank Gehry in his Temporary Contemporary in Los Angeles. Here, two warehouses were joined and cleared out. Only the most necessary new elements were added. The artists were free to use the space as they wanted, which gave the space a kind of do-it-yourself feeling. This somewhat informal atmosphere gave the artists the liberty to interact with the space as they saw fit. The freedom came not from freedom in the program but from a building with no rules and an informal atmosphere. The Centre Pompidou might have a much more “flexible container”-like space, but at the Temporary Contemporary the artists have no fear of breaking the “container”. This kind of atmosphere is also present at the Palais de Tokyo.

Tate Modern Like the Temporary Contemporary, Tate Modern is a refurbished existing industrial building space (1947–1963).

It is situated in the former Bankside Power Station by the Thames in London and was designed by the Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron in 2000. In an interview in the magazine ANY, the director of the Tate, Nicholas Serota, postulated that the paradigm of neutrality often leads to schizophrenic architecture. In a flexible space, Serota continues, art does not “sit comfortably”. Flexible spaces have a tendency to lose their character. On the other hand, an existing industrial space like the old Bankside

s. This was Power Station by the Thames London Power Station Bankside has a tendency to be relatively neutralinbut ged spaces is by Herzog & de Meuron.

In anthe interview not aseptic likeand a white cube; flexible, but without vo- in has the an identity a history. inating latility of a flexible thecontainer. magazine ItANY directorand of Tate Nicholas Serota postulated that the paradigm of neutrality At Tate Modern, theleads architects chose to architecture. keep the main often to schizophrenic In a flexible room where the generators used to be a flexible tic Robert space, Serota continues, artas does not “sitspacomfortathe museum is aa series of to relatively hat it is: ce, but the rest bly”.ofFlexible spaces has tendency be characterconventional white cubes.

In comparison, the Palais de space erything a less. On the other hand an existing industrial has chosen a much more radical hat it is Tokyo so like the old bankside powerapproach. station has a tendency erywhere to be relatively neutral, but not aseptic like a white and theofPames a bur-The Tate Modern, cube,Temporary flexible, butContemporary without the volatility a flexible lais de Tokyo are very different institutions, but they are ork with. container. It has an identity and history. all that isthe embedded the strategy ith the examples of the Atstrength Tate Modern architects in chose to keep the main of using repurposed buildings in order to exhibit modern ey put on room where the generators used to be as a flexible art, instead of using the strategy found in the Centre Pom-of relatispace but the rest of the museum is a series pidou that canvely be defined as a purpose-built flexible con- Palais conventional white cubes. In comparison es the tainer. de Tokyo has chosen a much more radical approach. idou but In the case of the Temporary Contemporary and the Pamainly Tate Modern, Temporary Contemporary and Palais lais de Tokyo, there is a certain rawness to the refurbisheen stride Tokyo are all very different institutions but they ments, which alludes to a romantic fantasy of the lofts of ill retains are all examples of the strength there is in the strathe modern artist, but it also gives off an atmosphere of s curators tegy of using repurposed buildings to exhibit mobeing temporary and takes a bit of the formality out of it. . art seems instead of strategy of This aesthetic dern choice to using work the wellPompidou in both cases the purpose-built flexible container. and can be seen as an attempt to democratize the art In the case of Temporary Contemporary and Palais world. and le- de Tokyo there is a certain the rawness of the refurcaton & bishments alludes to a romantic fantasy of the lofts of Gehry in the modern artist, but it also gives off an atmosphere two wareof being temporary and takes a bit of the formality he most out off it. This aesthetic choice seems to work well rtists were in both cases and can be seen as an attempt to degave the mocratize the art world. somewhat m to freedom t from a mosphere. e contaitist had d of atmo-

rn is a rehe former

FRA TOPPEN: Palais de Tokyo Tate Modern Center Pompidou Temporary Contemporary

Drawing Index 02.01 Site plan 1:2000 02.02 Plan Level 1A

1:200

02.03 Plan Level 2

1:200

02.04 Originals Drawings

1:200

02.05 - 02.07 Section A-A

1:200

02.08 - 02.10 Section B-B

1:200

02.11 - 02.15 Section C-C

1:200

Palais Palaisde deTokyo Tokyo

03.01 02.01

Arckitect: & Vassal & Vassal Architects:a Lacaton Year: 1999 2010 Site Site plan plan

1:2000 1:2000

11

May 24, 1937 Inauguration of the Palais des musées d’art moderne Palais de Tokyo building is constructed in 1937 for the Exposition internationale des arts et techniques de la vie moderne. The building is designed to house the Musée national d’art moderne in its west wing (the wing where the current Palais de Tokyo is to be found) and the Musée d’art moderne de la Ville de Paris in its east wing. (where it is still located).

1939-1945 Second World War

The collections of the Musée du Luxembourg (French contemporary art) and the Jeu de Paume (International contemporary art) are relocated in the west wing of the building, intended to house the newly created Musée national d’art moderne.

From 1939 onwards, some of the works were moved to various locations elsewhere in France to thwart the risk of requisition by the German government. In late 1941, the basements of the two museums were requisitioned and transformed into receivership warehouses for pillaged Jewish goods and property. Furniture (notably hundreds of pianos) was stored in the west wing, while crates of clothes and personal items were stocked in the east wing.

June 9, 1947 Inauguration of the Musée national d’art moderne The troubled period of the Second World War had until now prevented its complete opening in the west wing of the building, where Palais de Tokyo now stands.

1937

1938

1939

1947

1988

1990

1993

1995

March 16, 1988 Inauguration of the Cinémathèque française’s new premises The FEMIS, the Cinémathèque française, the Centre national de la Photographie and the Mission du Patrimoine Photographique are now of cially reunited in the west wing of the building, located at the site where Palais de Tokyo now stands.

November 1988 Creation of the Institut des Hautes Études en Arts Plastiques A project rst conceived by Pon- tus Hulten in 1983 and founded in 1985, the Institut des Hautes Études en Arts Plastiques brings together the annual course of study of up to 20 young artists.

4

1938 Relocation of the collections

December 1990 - February 1991 Relocation of the collections of the Fonds National d’Art Contemporain Located since 1938 on the ground floor of the west wing building, the Fonds National d’Art Contemporain is transferred to a custom-built location in the Defense district. Established during the French Third Republic, the Fonds National d’Art Contemporain is a fund set aside to purchase works of art that circulate in French and international exhibitions or from the repositories of museums, embassies, National Palaces and public institutions.

June 29, 1993 Departure of the Centre National de la Photographie Created in 1982, the Centre National de la Photographie sets up home in the west wing of the building in 1984.

It hosts a large number of major exhibitions devoted to contemporary photography before moving to new premises at the Hôtel Salomon de Rothschild, in the 8th arrondissement, making way for the Palais du cinéma project.

1995 Departure of the FEMIS Housed since 1986 in the west wing of the building, in 1995 the FEMIS relocates to new premises in Montmartre, freeing up space for the consequent Palais du cinéma project.

September 1976 Closure of the Musée national d’art moderne

March 8, 1978 Opening of the Musée d’Art et d’Essais

February 17, 1986 Creation of the Palais de l’image

The collections are relocated to the Centre National d’Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, cre- ated at the initiative of Georges Pompidou, President of the French Republic, and inaugurat- ed in 1977 in the Marais district.

Henceforth, the west wing of the building houses the Musée d’Art et d’Essais and its wide variety of collections: paintings from the second half of the 19th century, works by Picasso, which are later rehoused at the future Musée Picasso, as well as the collections of donors opposed to a transfer to the Centre Georges Pompidou.

The west wing of the building serves a new purpose once again with the creation of the Palais de l’image, bringing together un- der one roof the Cinémathèque française, the Institut National de Formation aux Métiers de l’Image et du Son and the Centre National de la Photographie.

November 18, 1986 Inauguration of the FEMIS The FEMIS, the Fondation Européenne pour les Métiers de l’Image et du Son, sets up home in the west wing of the building.

1976

1978

1986

1986

1998

1999

2002

2012

June 1998 The Palais du cinéma project is abandoned

July 1999 Palais de Tokyo becomes a contemporary art center

The Palais du cinéma project, which was intended to reunite the musée du cinéma, the FEMIS, the library and lm archives at the heart of the west wing build- ing, brought about the relocation of the Fond National d’Art Con- temporain in 1991 and the Centre National de la Photographie in 1993. However, this particular Palais was not destined to see the light of day and the major redevelopment programme is de nitively abandoned in 1998.

Catherine Trautmann, the minister of Culture and Commu- nication at the time, launches a scheme intended to consign part of the west wing building to the promotion of contemporary art.

From now on, the site dedicated to contemporary creation housed in this wing, is known as “Palais de Tokyo” with Nicolas Bourriaud and Jérôme Sans appointed as its rst directors.

January 2002 Inauguration of Palais de Tokyo, a site for contemporary art Palais de Tokyo, a site for contemporary art, opens its doors following the renovation of several of the indoor areas of the west wing by the architects Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal. Marc-Olivier Wahler succeeds Nicolas Bourriaud and Jérôme Sans as director from 2006 to 2010.

April 2012 Re-opening of Palais de Tokyo In April 2012, Palais de Tokyo reopens after ten months of renovation work and a three-month closure.

The architects Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal are once again called upon to oversee the renovation work and refurbishment.

Palais de Tokyo now occupies the entire west wing of the building dating back to 1937, a total surface area of 236,806 sq. ft. (22,000 sq. m.), making it the largest site devoted to contemporary creativity in Europe. Its current president, Jean de Loisy, was appointed in 2011.

5

Palais de Tokyo Palais de Tokyo

02.02 03.02

Architects:Architects: Lacaton &Lacaton Vassal & Vassal Year: 2010Year: 2010 Plan, LevelPlan, 1A Level 1A

12

1:500 1:500

cc

cc

aa aa bb

bb

Palais de Palais deTokyo Tokyo

03.03 02.02

Architects: Lacaton Lacaton&& Vassal Vassal Year: 2010 2010 Plan, Level Level 22

1:500 1:500

13

Original drawings by Lacaton & Vassal.

The things drawn in black are existing and the those red are their additions.

14

first floor plan First floor

third floor plan Third floor

20m ground floor plan Ground floor

Secund second floorfloor plan

Palais de Tokyo

Palais de Tokyo

03.04 02.04

Architects: Lacaton Lacaton&&Vassal Vassal Year: 2010 2010 Original Drawings Original drawings

1:500

15

cc

bb

cc

bb

aa

16

aa

Palais de Tokyode Tokyo Palais Architects: LacatonLacaton & Vassal& Vassal Architects: Year: 2010 Year: 2010

03.05 02.05 cc

bb

cc

bb

SectionSection A-A A-A

aa

aa

16

17

Palais de Tokyode Tokyo Palais Architects: LacatonLacaton & Vassal& Vassal Architects: Year: 2010 Year: 2010

03.06 02.06 cc

bb

cc

bb

SectionSection A-A A-A 16

18

aa

aa

Palais de Tokyode Tokyo Palais Palais de Tokyo

03.05

Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2010

Architects: LacatonLacaton & Vassal& Vassal Architects: Year: 2010 Year: 2010

cc

bb

cc

bb

SectionSection A-A A-A

Section A-A

16

03.07 02.07

aa

aa

17

19

cc

bb

cc

bb

aa

20

aa

Palais de Tokyo Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2010 Section B-B

03.08 Palais de Tokyo Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2010

02.08 cc

bb

cc

bb

Section B-B 20

aa

aa

21

Palais de Tokyode Tokyo Palais Architects: LacatonLacaton & Vassal& Vassal Architects: Year: 2010 Year: 2010 Section Section B-B B-B

22

20

03.09 02.09 cc

bb

cc

bb

aa

aa

Palais de Tokyode Tokyo Palais Architects: LacatonLacaton & Vassal& Vassal Architects: Year: 2010 Year: 2010 SectionSection B-B B-B 20

03.10 02.10 cc

bb

cc

bb

aa

aa

23

cc

bb

cc

bb

aa

24

aa

Palais de Tokyode Tokyo Palais Architects: LacatonLacaton & Vassal& Vassal Architects: Year: 2010 Year: 2010 SectionSection C-C C-C 24

03.11 02.11 cc

bb

cc

bb

aa

aa

25

Palais de Tokyode Tokyo Palais Architects: LacatonLacaton & Vassal& Vassal Architects: Year: 2010 Year: 2010

03.12 02.12 cc

bb

cc

bb

SectionSection C-C C-C

26

24

aa

aa

Palais de Tokyode Tokyo Palais Architects: LacatonLacaton & Vassal& Vassal Architects: Year: 2010 Year: 2010

03.13 02.13 cc

bb

cc

bb

SectionSection C-C C-C 24

aa

aa

27

Palais de Tokyode Tokyo Palais Architects: LacatonLacaton & Vassal& Vassal Architects: Year: 2010 Year: 2010 SectionSection C-C C-C

28

24

03.14 02.14 cc

bb

cc

bb

aa

aa

Palais de Tokyode Tokyo Palais Architects: LacatonLacaton & Vassal& Vassal Architects: Year: 2010 Year: 2010 SectionSection C-C C-C 24

03.14 02.15 cc

bb

cc

bb

aa

aa

29

Palais de Tokyode Tokyo Palais Architects: LacatonLacaton & Vassal& Vassal Architects: Year: 2010 Year: 2010 SectionSection C-C C-C

30

24

03.15 02.16 cc

bb

cc

bb

aa

aa

Bibliography Magazine articles The Architectural Review N°1384, ”Fun Palais”, Andrew Ayers, 2012, p. 44-51 Archis is Africa, ”The beauty of transience”, Steven Wassenaar, 2002, p. 93-99 Domus N°847, ”Il Palazo del Popolo”, 2002, p. 122-129 Palais N°15 (numéro spécial histoire du Palais de Tokyo), ”Comme un paysage sans limite / Like an endless landscape”, David Cascaro, Claire Staebler, 2012 Oris - n°24, ”We don’t much believe in form”, Ante Niksa, Sasa Bradic, Vera Grimmer, 2003 Techniques & Architecture - n°458, ”Dé-frichage pour l’art”, 2002, p. 70-75 Architektur Aktuell N°04.2002, ”Site de création contemporaine”, Dominique Boudet 2002, p. 56-67 World Architecture - n°105, ”The art of today”, Kieran Long, 2002, p. 56-59 +33 N°01.2001, ”Nouveaux lieux”, Anaid Demir, Cyrille Poy, 2001, p. 20-31 ArtPress N°388, ”Réouverture du Palais de Tokyo, les processus de l’imaginaire / Plans for the Bigger Palais de Tokyo”, Anaël Pigeat, 2012, p. 32-38 Reduce Reuse Recycle, Mathieu Wellner 2012 Book Tripple Bound - Essays on Art, Architecture and the Museum, Wouter Davidts, Valiz 2017 Film The Shock of the New, Ep.8 - The Future That Was, Robert Hughes & David Lewis Richardson, BBC 1980

LOGEMENTS ÉTUDIANTS & SOCIAUX Location Rue de Thionville & Rue de l’Orque, 19th arrondissement, Paris Group 3 Amanda Andresen Nathalie Wathne Nicolai Espensen Rasmus Feddersen

COLOPHON Editorial & layout: Anne Beim, Erling Aleksander NybrĂĽten & Helene Skotte Wied Programme Direction: Frans Drewniak & Anne Beim Authors: Amanda Andresen, Nathalie Wathne, Nicolai Espensen & Rasmus Feddersen Published by: The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation Masters programe - Settlement, Ecology and Tectonics Institute of Architecture and Tecnology Philip de Langes Alle 10 DK- 1435 Copenhagen K Denmark ISBN: 978-87-7830-981-5

Table of Content Field studies in France

2

Case study

4

Drawing Index 13 Site plan 14 Site plan 15 Plan drawings 16 Sections

22

Facades 24 Apartment plans 29 Isometric drawings 30

Field Studies in France In the autumn of 2017, students from the graduate program Settlement, Ecology & Tectonics (SET), at The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts - School of Architecture, travelled to France to study selected works by the French architects Anne Lacaton & Jean Phillip Vassal. The field studies were meant to give insights into French building culture in order to form the backdrop for critical discussions about present-day building culture in Denmark. The themes Generosity and Everyday Architecture were to be studied by looking at how Lacaton & Vassal worked with these elements in their architecture. As part of the site visits, Lacaton & Vassal arranged for us to talk to key people who had been involved in the building projects, and we also had the opportunity to talk to residents and owners. Some of the students’ work includes interviews and studies into how the users inhabit their living spaces and how their daily lives unfold. Photo registration, daylight analyses and reconstruction of building parts in scale models have added new layers to the understanding of the lived life in the architecture of Lacaton & Vassal.

About this publication This publication is one out of nine booklets that together present the students’ analyses across nine buildings.

Some of the building projects have been studied by two groups, and these are collected in one booklet. The nine booklets are meant to form the basis for future architectural studies at graduate level, but we also hope that the work will act as a source of inspiration for fellow architects and the soon-to-be architects, who completed this stimulating work.

Generosity and everyday architecture What is meant by creating generous architecture for ordinary life? How can architecture contribute to nourishing people’s well-being, and how are the cities and buildings that we as architects envision and give architectural form to used or inhabited? These questions have been the core elements of the fieldwork and have followed the study projects throughout the year.

To create architecture that aims to embody a generous gesture requires a deep understanding of how social and cultural settings form the physical framework for our daily lives and vice versa. Through detailed studies of which elements (phenomenological or physical) add to create quality in everyday life, we architects may be enabled to

construct a responsive architecture that offers better living conditions in a multitude of ways. It may be a nice spot for reading that is showered in daylight, extra space for a young or old family member or a suitable space for a social get-together. This sort of attention may contribute to distinct settings for nourishing social life that should form the core part of architectural spaces: our built environment and urban spaces.

In Denmark, there is a strong tradition to focus on everyday architecture and to create architectural quality that is not only meant for pricy prestigious buildings but also for the general residential sector and social housing. It is an art to envision architectural quality and to make generous architectural spaces when you are limited by very small budgets. In this case, to be generous is about “getting more out of less”, showing benevolence and care at all levels and giving something back to the community and to the individual. Among other things, generosity appears as “something that offers more” than what was expected or what existed before.

The studies Anne Lacaton & Jean Phillip Vassal often use the concept of “generosity” to describe their architectural intentions. They have a clear desire to improve the well-being of the user, especially in socially vulnerable residential areas, providing them spacious housing and optimal living qualities such as spatial flexibility or a good indoor climate. Qualities like these have been realized in spite of fairly limited budgets, and therefore the tectonic aspects of the projects have been worked with very intentionally.

The students worked in 12 small groups (4–5 people), where each group was given one of Lacaton & Vassal’s projects in Paris, Nantes or Saint-Nazaire. Based on a joint research design, they prepared and conducted investigations into how the concept of generosity is reflected in the various buildings. In this way, they mapped a wide range of Lacaton & Vassal’s projects and thus provided a common basis for the following work. Also, they gained insight into Lacaton & Vassal’s special way of thinking and working with architecture.

Prior to the field studies, there was two weeks of preparatory studies. While visiting the architectural sites, each group had half a day to record and investigate their construction.

Research design Based on the joint research design, the collection of knowledge from the individual site visits becomes part of the larger project concerning generosity and everyday architecture. The whole group is thus working on sub-elements that feed into an overall mapping of Lacaton & Vassal’s approach to architecture. In that sense, a collective archive is generated.

The research design consists of four main elements: 1. Initial studies Generosity represented in the building environment (target groups and building typologies) - Description of the idea of the building through studies of drawing material and written sources (books, articles, websites etc.)

- Also, the following questions are to be addressed: Who is the building built for and who has built it? In what way does the project include the urban and social context? Is it a project with a limited budget or what other limitations have set the framework for construction? What is the architect’s strategy to create a generous architecture?

2. Generosity represented in the tectonic process (specification of basic principles/building methods) The purpose of this part is to map and discuss how the architectural approach can be read in the construction.

The analysis focuses on the tectonic aspects and how the building tells the story of its creation. What choices have the architects made to support their vision of the building and how is it reflected in the choice of materials and construction.

The analysis consists of three parts: - The load-bearing structure: its structural logics and principles, its readability, material characteristics.

- The facade/building envelope: its materiality, how it influences the indoor climate, daylight, ventilation and thermal conditions, the correlation of the facade and the load-bearing structure.

- Installations: how do they form part of the architectural design (visible/hidden), how do they correlate to the building structures? Do they work “with or against” the architectural concept?

3. Studies on-site Generosity found in the individual residence These studies look at the architectural strategies as experienced in the very building. They fall in two parts: one focuses on the individual housing unit and the other on the common space of the building.

Each group has chosen a topic they want to work with.

This may be a tectonic or a social phenomenon (e.g. the importance of the material selection for the residence’s interior design). There are many options and each group develops a research design that describes how they will approach the selected themes; in other words, a statement of how to study WHAT. The core of the research design is therefore a critical discussion of why the chosen methods are relevant to the topic of investigation. There is freedom in choice of methodologies.

4. Generosity found in the common space of the building (inside and outside) As in the study of the individual housing unit, in this part, each group develops a research design based on their chosen topic. This study focuses on the shared spatial environment in addition to the individual housing unit (e.g. the garden areas, the yard and other common facilities).

After the study trip, all the material has been collected and edited to be presented in these booklets, including text, photographs, drawings and other sorts of material. Altogether, we are proud to present the final outcome.

Frans Drewniak, Ulrik Stylsvig Madsen and Anne Beim

Case / Logements étudiants & LOGEMENTS ÉTUDIANTS & SOCIAUX sociaux THE MIXED PROGRAM In our program studies of the Logements Étudiants & Sociaux by The mixed Lacaton & we want to investigate the building In our studies ofVassal the Logements Étudiants how & Sociaux by works, how the users experience the mixed program Lacaton & Vassal, we want to investigate how the buildingof building and how the programmatic works, the how the users experience the mixedorganization program ofis compared to similar projects.

We have studied existing the building and how the programmatic organization can drawings well as interviewed four studied inhabitants of the be compared to as similar projects.

We have existing building in order to get insightfour into inhabitants the topics previously drawings, as well as interviewed of the mentioned.

One person from each type previously of program building in order to get insight into the topics was interviewed; student, a nurse, and mentioned.

One personone from each one typetenant, of program was an employee of the architecture studio on the ground interviewed: a student, a tenant, a nurse, and an employfloor.

We have looked intothe two similar projects Unité ee of the architecture studio on ground floor.

We have

by Le Corbusier and Genossenschaft looked d’Habitation into two similar projects, Unité d’Habitation by Kalkbreite by Müller Sigrist Architekten AG, to be able to Le Corbusier and Genossenschaft Kalkbreite by Müller compare the use of the mixed programmes.

Sigrist Architekten AG, to be able to compare the use of the mixed programs.

LOGEMENTS ÉTUDIANTS & SOCIAUX Logements Étudiants & Sociaux is a building located Logements & sociaux in the étudiants 19th arrondissement in the northern part of Logements Étudiants & Sociaux is a building located thede Paris between Canal de l’Orque and Chemin deinfer 19th arrondissement Paris between Petite Ceinture,inatthe thenorthern corner ofpart Rueofde Thionville and Canal de l’Orque and Chemin de fer de Petite Ceinture at a Rue de l’Orque. The surrounding area is undergoing the corner of Rue de Thionville and Rue de l’Orque.

The development of many new housing projects.

The building surrounding area is undergoing a development of many is part of solving the lack of dwellings for people with a new housing projects.

The building is 19th part arrondissement, of solving the lower income in Paris and in the lack of which dwellings for people with a lower income in Paris at the moment houses 184.000 inhabitants.

and in the 19th arrondissement, which currently houses 184,000 Theinhabitants. project was built in 2014 with Societé Immobiliére d’Economie Mixte de la ville de Paris (SIEMP) as client.

SIEMP was is a public limited which is responsible The project built in 2014company, with Societé Immobiliére for building, housing over d’Economie Mixte renovating de la ville and de maintaining Paris (SIEMP) beingallthe Paris. The administered bythat Bureaux CROUS client. SIEMP is abuilding public is limited company is respona housing administration in Paris. Thehousing building sible for building, renovating company and maintaining 98 building student is dwellings, 30 social housing all overcontains Paris. The administered

by Bureaux

apartments, 6 dwellings for people with special needs and 3 units for commercial use.

The mixed program exploded

4

The apartments are distributed on the first to eighth floor, CROUS, a housing administration company in Paris. The while the commercial and dwellings, dwellings for peoplehousing building contains 98units student 30 social with special needs are locatedforonpeople the ground In needs apartments, 6 dwellings with floor. special addition this for there are car anduse. bike parking facilities in and 3 to units commercial the basement. The social housing apartments contain 1-5The rooms, and are laid as dual aspect apartments apartments areout distributed across the first to the with common rooms orientated towards the garden, eighth floor, while the commercial units andand dwellings theforbedrooms towards the street. thelocated social housing people with special needsAllare on the ground apartments have a to 2,10m garden 1m parking floor. In addition this,winter there are car and and abike balcony to the southeast.

The building’s infrastructure is facilities in the basement. The social housing apartments organised with separate entrances. contain one to five rooms and are laid out as dual-aspect

apartments with common rooms orientated towards the

THE LOADBEARING STRUCTURE garden and the bedrooms towards the street. All the sociThe loadbearing elements in the building are prefabricated al housing apartments have a 2.10 m winter garden and a concrete panels and columns, supporting the optimised 1 m balcony to the southeast. The building’s infrastructure concrete deck above. The loadbearing walls serve is organized with separate entrances. as stabilising elements and divisions between the apartments. The construction is exposed so one can structure seeThe theloadbearing horizontal ribbon of the concrete decks and The load-bearing elements the buildingfrom are the prefabricathe vertical walls separating thein apartments ted concrete panels and columns supporting outside. This system gives a permanent organisationthe of optimiconcrete deck above.

The ifload-bearing walls thezed plan, which requires larger action the building is to serve as stabilizing elements and divisions between the be reorganised. The constructive logic is easily readable apartments.

Theleaving construction exposed soframework that one can see in the building a clearlyisdefined spatial the horizontal ribbon of the concrete decks and the vertifor the inhabitant to occupy.

cal walls separating the apartments from the outside. This

system gives a permanent organization of the plan, which THE BUILDING ENVELOPE requires larger actionconsists if the building is to be The building envelope of two layers onreorganized. one side andconstruction four layers onlogic the other.

Towards the street thebuilding, The is easily readable in the envelope of largespatial sliding doors in aluminium leavingisacomprised clearly defined framework for the inhabiwith and isolating curtains with coloured fabric tantglass, to occupy. on the inside. Facing the garden there are two layers of sliding doors, enclosing a winter garden. All elements in the building envelope are moveable, allowing the inhabitants to adjust the internal climate. The idea is to

The loadbearing structure and the skin

The wintergarden and the cat

5

The building envelope The building envelope consists of two layers on one side and four layers on the other. Towards the street, the building envelope is comprised of large sliding doors in aluminum with glass and insulating curtains with colored fabric on the inside. Facing the garden, there are two layers of sliding doors enclosing a winter garden. All elements that are part of the building envelope are moveable, allowing the inhabitants to adjust the internal climate. The idea is to give the inhabitants a way to adjust the indoor climate according to needs and the season. The sliding doors are stretched out between the floor structure through the entire building, creating glass facades towards the garden and the street.

The building’s 98 student dwellings are facing either west or east. These dwellings have only natural light from one side, with a view towards the garden or Rue de l’Orque. In the student dwellings facing the garden, the east-facing end wall consists of glass from top to bottom. This brings a lot of light into the room and provides a view to the city, when the climatic conditions allow. The west-facing dwellings have awnings to keep the sun out. When looking at other projects by Lacaton & Vassal, it becomes clear that this is a particular characteristic of this building.

The student that we interviewed expressed satisfaction with the amount of light from the big window section and appreciates the view if the temperature in the room allows the curtains to be drawn aside. It is a complicated process to regulate the indoor climate, as the room gets very hot during the summer and similarly cold in winter. One must use the insulating curtains as a “protective shield” in the summer to keep the sun out of the room. “Most of the time the curtains are pulled almost completely shut to keep the heat either out or inside and only let in the required amount of light.” Thus, the room is completely darkened in the summer. In winter, the same problem occurs. Since, the insulating effect of the glass is minimal, the curtains must be drawn shut to maintain a comfortable temperature within the room. The insulating effect of the big curtains seems questionable according to the student: “The heat goes through the curtains, it is very problematic in the summer.” And you can predict the same in the winter, when the heat from inside escapes through the windows and curtains. As it is not possible to cross-ventilate the dwellings, there are limited possibilities to control the climate.

The residents of the apartments for people with special needs experience a similar challenge regarding the indoor climate. “There is a problem with the indoor climate on the ground floor. It gets very cold in the winter, and too hot in the summer.” That has led to the installation of an air conditioning system in the common areas to improve the indoor climate. If the nurses are to take care of the people living there, they do not have time to open and close curtains and windows all the time.

In the three-bedroom apartment, they have another impression of the indoor climate and ways to adjust it. The bigger apartments have facades facing two directions, in contrast to the other types of apartments. This gives the possibility to make fresh air flow through the apartment, and as they have bigger facades and winter gardens it allows for more daylight to enter the room while keeping the direct sun out. A female tenant is very pleased with the indoor climate and has the curtains drawn back as long as possible during the day.

On the ground floor, there are three commercial units. To the east, the two architectural practices Nicholas Reymond Architecture & Urbanism and Vallet de Martinis Architectes share an office, which is split into two floors by an internal spiral staircase. Their office is located right next to Rue de Thionville. According to one of the architects, there are a number of noise nuisances associated with the window sections in the office: “It is great with the opportunity to open up. But it does not work like intended on the ground and 1st floor. Because of the traffic, there is a lot of noise when we pull the sliding doors aside. That is a problem in the summer when we have to keep the doors completely open.” The office only has curtains on the side facing the garden and is therefore situated with a great view of the street life. The staff are astonished by the lack of insulating properties of the building: “We do not understand how the building can live up to the building regulations. We are working with RT2012 regulations and we would not be allowed to make a building like this.”

The building envelope provides great flexibility to the residents in terms of openness and adjustment of the indoor climate, while on the other hand it requires its residents to play an active part in creating the desired conditions.

This might be problematic in terms of achieving the right amount of daylight and the right temperature at the same time. It might also cause problems in terms of privacy,

Summer

The eaves works as sunlight protection when the sun is at its highest. The sliding doors gives the opportunity for draught.

South

North Night

The wintergarden works as insulation.

The concrete construction releases its accumulated heat during the night.

South

Summer

The wintergarden is heated and transmits heat to the common rooms in the apartments and extends the seaons.

North

South

Night

The winter sun comes all the way into the apartments and heats up the room and the construction.

North

Spring/fall

The wintergarden is heated and transmits heat to the common rooms in the apartments and extends the seaons.

North

Winter

The wintergarden works as insulation.

The concrete construction releases its accumulated heat during the night.

South

North

Spring/fall

The eaves works as sunlight protection when the sun is at its highest. The sliding doors gives the opportunity for draught.

South

The facade

South

North

Climate concept

7

depending on the social and cultural background of the inhabitant. And finally, there is the risk of breaking one of the many movable parts.

One might imply that the experience of the indoor climate within the different dwellings is dependent on size, location and whether or not there is balcony and/or winter garden. Clearly, the woman in the three-bedroom apartment was very satisfied with the indoor climate, because she has great opportunity for ventilating the dwelling, in contrast to the offices on the ground floor, where the staff experience challenges with adjusting the indoor temperature. This also applies to the small apartments. It also indicates that there is some correlation between the persons/ m2 ratio and the opportunity to cross-ventilate to achieve a good indoor climate.

The machine As part of their strategy, Lacaton & Vassal have tried to optimize the construction and the technical installations in order to provide the inhabitants with as much space as possible. For instance, prefabricated bathroom modules are optimized in the student dwellings, leaving more living space. In addition, the winter gardens serve as insulation as well as extensions of the inner spaces, providing the apartments with extra space and a view.

In a way, the building envelope works as the most important “building installation”. The building envelope is supposed to take care of the indoor climate and make it work without electrical services. The electrical and wastewater systems are made in a traditional manner, with vertical installation shafts at the toilet cores. This makes it possible to optimize the room height, giving more space to the inhabitants. One particular element in this building is the solar heating system, which provides hot water all year round, as well as heating in the winter. The solar panels are located on the roof, with heat exchangers in the basement, one for the student dwellings and one for the other apartments. In one way, the building works as a machine managed by the users, a kind of integrated solution of installations. However, in contrast to the construction system, only the sliding doors and curtains can be understood directly, while the technical installations are hidden.

As stated earlier, it requires that the inhabitants play an active part in making the machine work.

Spatial and social complexity While the rigorous and modernistic facade makes a compelling and cohesive whole that nicely fits the scale and order of its corner plot, it also blurs the line between its complex spatial program and use. However, with a closer reading of the facade, you will find subtle signs of a differentiation in program; for instance, in the retractable awnings of the student dwellings or the changing rhythms of glass partitions on the balconies, relating to the differing sizes of the units within.

The geometry of the building and the types of apartments provide various spatial experiences, particularly in the social housing. The architectural practice is laid out on two floors connected by a double-height space with a spiral staircase. These various spatial experiences contrast with the otherwise strict exterior.

The way the building is divided does not really encourage any interaction or spontaneous meetings between the users and inhabitants of the building. The courtyard behind the building is the only place that holds a potential to create a setting for the inhabitants to meet. But also here, one experiences the strict division between the different parts. The garden is closed and it is only used by the inhabitants with special needs on the ground floor. “We use the garden to take walks with the inhabitants, providing the opportunity to relax in an otherwise hectic city,” the nurse explains. “We often walk in the garden but do not see the other inhabitants.” The fact that the garden is only to be used by the people with special needs emphasizes the experience of a poorly integrated building where groups live separate lives.

Within each program, there is also a clear division. The commercial units on the ground floor have a direct entrance from the street, while each apartment has separate entrances through staircases and halls on each floor. It can be difficult to see where the different entrances are and where they lead to. Everywhere in the building, you see a clear boundary between the public and private space, and no semi-private spaces. This is quite visible both between the different types of use and the individual apartments.

As lived - Photo: Nathalie Wathne

As built - Photo: Lacaton & Vassal

As lived - Photo: Nathalie Wathne

As built - Photo: Lacaton & Vassal

9

In a building with four different programs as well as types of inhabitants, there is a possibility of one group bothering another. It could be noise from the younger inhabitants or from the wine bar on the ground floor. But the separations inside the building ensure that they do not bother one another. On the other hand, it also means that the inhabitants do not interact. “We do not meet the other inhabitants … the only contact we have is with the superintendent.” When interaction between them is absent, one can discuss the value of having so many different programs within the same building instead of having separate buildings.

In addition to the physical separation in the building, there seems to be no immediate interest in creating a social community between the various inhabitants. There are no communities or groups such as a board of users or anything similar. “You do not experience the diversity. People mind their own business. Sometimes you can hear the people in the garden, but except from that you do not meet anyone,” the student says.

As result of the clear separation and the minimal size of the student dwellings, as well as a lack of common spaces, it seems like there has been no intention to create spaces for people to meet inside the building complex.

This could indicate that the focus has been on creating the best possible framework for the individual resident and creating homes that people can afford. When looking at other projects by Lacaton & Vassal, this appears to be a general theme. There is not a strong focus on common areas, as for instance in Denmark. In this case, one has chosen to focus on the individual apartments and commercial spaces. “No more flats, only villas,” as Jean Pierre Vassal says.

The building complex These kinds of combined programs in a building is not the most common type of building. Unité d’Habitation by Le Corbusier, located in Marseille and finished in 1952, is a building complex of a similar nature. This project is also dealing with mixed programs and combines housing with commercial use such as: shopping streets, a hostel, restaurant, post office, gymnasium and a rooftop terrace.

There are 337 apartments of 23 different types, from student dwellings to families with eight children. Each apartment has at least one balcony. Le Corbusier designed Unité d’Habitation with the intention of a “vertical garden city” to house many people, offering public spaces for interaction between inhabitants, as well as fulfilling their

needs for shopping, exercise etc. His idea was to bring the villa to a larger volume. Sixty-five years later, the combination of programs is very similar. The hostel is now a hotel and many of the shops have been taken over by more specialist businesses such as medical practitioners and architects.

“Genossenschaft Kalkbreite” in Zurich, that was built in 2014 by Kalkbreite Co-op and designed the architects Müller Sigrist Architekten AG, is another example of a housing project with combined programs. The building accommodates 97 apartment units for around 250 people, a movie theatre, a 5,000 m2 space for commercial use, shared offices for rent, a bed-and-breakfast and a public courtyard built over a tram depot. It started off as a wish for developing the open-air tram depot into a housing project back in the 1970s. Today, it is an example of a residential development that focuses on ecological and cultural diversity and simultaneously experiments with different kinds of housing types. For instance, Kalkbreite offers cluster residences, which are private units with mini-kitchens and bathrooms, that share one central common room and a larger kitchen. In this way, the building houses a lot of people and uses less space. Kalkbreite also accommodates a community household, which is apartments that share a common dining space and have a chef hired to prepare for everyday dinners.

Both projects incorporate private spaces, common spaces, housing and commercial units in the same building.

A central distinction between these projects and Logements Étudiants & Sociaux is the absence of common areas and semi-private spaces. Lacaton & Vassal have designed a building that distinctly separates the spaces in private and public zones and gives the impression of a complex building with very divided programs. This physical separation affects the experience of the building, which causes a lack of social integration.

On the one hand, the building provides a group of citizens some architectural qualities that they might otherwise not be able to afford. On the other hand, the opportunities of different programs in one building are not being utilized to their full potential. There may be different reasons for this: cultural, structural or economical. If there is no way or will to finance shared spaces, you easily end up with a social division like in Logements Étudiants & Sociaux. In this particular situation, the goal might have been to just build affordable housing.

Unité d’Habitation - Photo: Paul Kozlowski, 1997

Kalkbreite Genossenschaft - Photo: Kalkbreite Flex

11

Drawing Index 03.01 Site plan 1:2000 03.02 Siteplan 1:200 03.03 Ground floor plan

1:200

03.04 Floor plan 02 + 03 + 04

1:200

03.05 Floor plans 1:200 03.06 Sections 1:200 03.07 Facade north 1:200 03.08 Facade south 1:200 03.09 Apartment plans 03.10 Isometric detail 03.11 Isometric detail

1:100

Logements ĂŠtudiants & sociaux Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2014 Schwarzplan

1:2000

03.01

Housing

Rue de la Marne

Supermarket Rue de Thionville Sociaux Housing

Rue de la Meurthe

Café

Étudiants

Chemin de fer de Petite Ceinture

Supermarket

Housing

Rue de l’Ourcq Housing

Logements Étudiants & Sociaux Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Logements étudiants & sociaux Year: 2014 Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Site plan 1:500 Year: 2014 Site plan

1:2000

03.02 03.02

15

Social ho hall

Student housing Hall

Laundry

Wine bar & restaurant

Entrance to special apartments

16

Bike parking Student housing

ousing l

Gallery

Bike parking Social housing

Social housing hall

Office

Ramp underground parking facility

LogementsÉtudiants Êtudiants & sociaux Logements & Sociaux

03.03 03.03

Architects: Lacaton Lacaton && Vassal Vassal Architects: Year: 2014 2014 Year: Ground floor floor plan Ground plan

1:200 1:200

17

Student housing

Studio13

Social housing

Studio14

Office

Studio11

Studio09

Studio12

Studio10

Studio07

Studio08

Studio05

Studio06

Studio03

Studio01

Studio04

Studio02

18

Apartment 5

Apartment 3

Apartment 4

Apartment 4

Apartment 1

LogementsÉtudiants Êtudiants & sociaux Logements & Sociaux

03.04 03.04

Architects: Lacaton Lacaton && Vassal Vassal Architects: Year: 2014 2014 Year: Floor plan 03++04 04 Floor plan 02 02 ++ 03

1:2000 1:200

19

0

Specia

l aparm

ents Resta urant

W

ine

ba r

Student housing

Social housing

Gallery

Social housing

Office

oliger Plejeb

LogementsÉtudiants Êtudiants & sociaux Logements & Sociaux

03.05 03.05

Architects: Lacaton Lacaton && Vassal Vassal Architects: Year: 2014 2014 Year: Floor plans Floor plans

1:400 1:400

21

22

Logements Étudiants & Sociaux

03.06

Logements Étudiants & Sociaux Architects: Lacaton & Vassal

Logements Year: 2014 étudiants & sociaux

Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Section AA + BB & Vassal Architects: Lacaton Year: 2014 Year: 2014 Section AA+BB Section AA + BB

03.06 03.06

1:200

1:200 1:200

23

24

Logements Étudiants & Sociaux

LogementsÉtudiants étudiants & sociaux Logements & Sociaux

Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Architects: Lacaton Lacaton && Vassal Vassal Year: 2014 Architects: Year: 2014 2014 Year: Facade--North north Facade Facade - North

03.07

03.07 03.07

1:200 1:2001:200

25

26

Logements Étudiants & Sociaux

LogementsÉtudiants étudiants & sociaux Logements & Sociaux

Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Architects: Lacaton Lacaton && Vassal Vassal Architects: Year: 2014 Year: Year: 2014 2014 Facade--South south Facade Facade - North

03.07

03.08 03.08

1:200 1:2001:200

27

Logements Étudiants & Sociaux

Logements étudiants & sociaux Logements Étudiants & Sociaux

Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Architects: & Vassal Vassal Architects: Lacaton Lacaton & Year: 2014 Year: 2014 Year: 2014 Apartments plans Facade - North Apartment plans

03.07

03.09 03.09

1:2001:100 1:100 29

30

Logements Étudiants & Sociaux

Logements étudiants & sociaux Logements Étudiants & Sociaux

Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Architects: Lacaton && Vassal Vassal Architects: Lacaton Year: 2014 Year: 2014

03.07

03.10 03.10

Year: 2014

Isometric Facade - North Isometric drawing drawing

1:200

1:50

31

32

Logements Étudiants & Sociaux

LogementsÉtudiants étudiants & sociaux Logements & Sociaux

Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Architects: Lacaton Lacaton && Vassal Vassal Year: 2014 Architects: Year: 2014

03.07

03.11 03.11

Year: 2014

Isometric drawing Facade - North Isometric drawing

1:200

1:50

33

53 habitations HLM Location Saint Nazaire, France Group 4-5 Oliver Mogensen Mathias Skjold Larsen Joachim Makholm Michelsen Johan Emil Engelbrecht VindnĂŚs Sarah Sonne Glatz Sara Kristine Casey Magnus Aamund Lind

COLOPHON Editorial & layout: Anne Beim, Erling Aleksander NybrĂĽten & Helene Skotte Wied Programme Direction: Frans Drewniak & Anne Beim Authors: Oliver Mogensen, Mathias Skjold Larsen, Joachim Makholm Michelsen & Johan Emil Engelbrecht VindnĂŚs Sara Sonne Glatz, Sara Kristine Casey, Magnus Aamand Lindquist & Hannah Appelgren Published by: The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation Masters programe - Settlement, Ecology and Tectonics Institute of Architecture and Tecnology Philip de Langes Alle 10 DK- 1435 Copenhagen K Denmark ISBN: 978-87-7830-981-5

Table of Content Field studies in France

2

Case study

4

Drawing Index 10 Site plan 11 Plans 12 Facade 14 Perspective Section

16

Plan drawing

17

Perspective Section

18

Plan drawing

19

Perspective Section

20

Plan drawing

21

Photo 22 Quotes 23

Field Studies in France In the autumn of 2017, students from the graduate program Settlement, Ecology & Tectonics (SET), at The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts - School of Architecture, travelled to France to study selected works by the French architects Anne Lacaton & Jean Phillip Vassal. The field studies were meant to give insights into French building culture in order to form the backdrop for critical discussions about present-day building culture in Denmark. The themes Generosity and Everyday Architecture were to be studied by looking at how Lacaton & Vassal worked with these elements in their architecture. As part of the site visits, Lacaton & Vassal arranged for us to talk to key people who had been involved in the building projects, and we also had the opportunity to talk to residents and owners. Some of the students’ work includes interviews and studies into how the users inhabit their living spaces and how their daily lives unfold. Photo registration, daylight analyses and reconstruction of building parts in scale models have added new layers to the understanding of the lived life in the architecture of Lacaton & Vassal.

About this publication This publication is one out of nine booklets that together present the students’ analyses across nine buildings.

Some of the building projects have been studied by two groups, and these are collected in one booklet. The nine booklets are meant to form the basis for future architectural studies at graduate level, but we also hope that the work will act as a source of inspiration for fellow architects and the soon-to-be architects, who completed this stimulating work.

Generosity and everyday architecture What is meant by creating generous architecture for ordinary life? How can architecture contribute to nourishing people’s well-being, and how are the cities and buildings that we as architects envision and give architectural form to used or inhabited? These questions have been the core elements of the fieldwork and have followed the study projects throughout the year.

To create architecture that aims to embody a generous gesture requires a deep understanding of how social and cultural settings form the physical framework for our daily lives and vice versa. Through detailed studies of which elements (phenomenological or physical) add to create quality in everyday life, we architects may be enabled to

construct a responsive architecture that offers better living conditions in a multitude of ways. It may be a nice spot for reading that is showered in daylight, extra space for a young or old family member or a suitable space for a social get-together. This sort of attention may contribute to distinct settings for nourishing social life that should form the core part of architectural spaces: our built environment and urban spaces.

In Denmark, there is a strong tradition to focus on everyday architecture and to create architectural quality that is not only meant for pricy prestigious buildings but also for the general residential sector and social housing. It is an art to envision architectural quality and to make generous architectural spaces when you are limited by very small budgets. In this case, to be generous is about “getting more out of less”, showing benevolence and care at all levels and giving something back to the community and to the individual. Among other things, generosity appears as “something that offers more” than what was expected or what existed before.

The studies Anne Lacaton & Jean Phillip Vassal often use the concept of “generosity” to describe their architectural intentions. They have a clear desire to improve the well-being of the user, especially in socially vulnerable residential areas, providing them spacious housing and optimal living qualities such as spatial flexibility or a good indoor climate. Qualities like these have been realized in spite of fairly limited budgets, and therefore the tectonic aspects of the projects have been worked with very intentionally.

The students worked in 12 small groups (4–5 people), where each group was given one of Lacaton & Vassal’s projects in Paris, Nantes or Saint-Nazaire. Based on a joint research design, they prepared and conducted investigations into how the concept of generosity is reflected in the various buildings. In this way, they mapped a wide range of Lacaton & Vassal’s projects and thus provided a common basis for the following work. Also, they gained insight into Lacaton & Vassal’s special way of thinking and working with architecture.

Prior to the field studies, there was two weeks of preparatory studies. While visiting the architectural sites, each group had half a day to record and investigate their construction.

Research design Based on the joint research design, the collection of knowledge from the individual site visits becomes part of the larger project concerning generosity and everyday architecture. The whole group is thus working on sub-elements that feed into an overall mapping of Lacaton & Vassal’s approach to architecture. In that sense, a collective archive is generated.

The research design consists of four main elements: 1. Initial studies Generosity represented in the building environment (target groups and building typologies) - Description of the idea of the building through studies of drawing material and written sources (books, articles, websites etc.)

- Also, the following questions are to be addressed: Who is the building built for and who has built it? In what way does the project include the urban and social context? Is it a project with a limited budget or what other limitations have set the framework for construction? What is the architect’s strategy to create a generous architecture?

2. Generosity represented in the tectonic process (specification of basic principles/building methods) The purpose of this part is to map and discuss how the architectural approach can be read in the construction.

The analysis focuses on the tectonic aspects and how the building tells the story of its creation. What choices have the architects made to support their vision of the building and how is it reflected in the choice of materials and construction.

The analysis consists of three parts: - The load-bearing structure: its structural logics and principles, its readability, material characteristics.

- The facade/building envelope: its materiality, how it influences the indoor climate, daylight, ventilation and thermal conditions, the correlation of the facade and the load-bearing structure.

- Installations: how do they form part of the architectural design (visible/hidden), how do they correlate to the building structures? Do they work “with or against” the architectural concept?

3. Studies on-site Generosity found in the individual residence These studies look at the architectural strategies as experienced in the very building. They fall in two parts: one focuses on the individual housing unit and the other on the common space of the building.

Each group has chosen a topic they want to work with.

This may be a tectonic or a social phenomenon (e.g. the importance of the material selection for the residence’s interior design). There are many options and each group develops a research design that describes how they will approach the selected themes; in other words, a statement of how to study WHAT. The core of the research design is therefore a critical discussion of why the chosen methods are relevant to the topic of investigation. There is freedom in choice of methodologies.

4. Generosity found in the common space of the building (inside and outside) As in the study of the individual housing unit, in this part, each group develops a research design based on their chosen topic. This study focuses on the shared spatial environment in addition to the individual housing unit (e.g. the garden areas, the yard and other common facilities).

After the study trip, all the material has been collected and edited to be presented in these booklets, including text, photographs, drawings and other sorts of material. Altogether, we are proud to present the final outcome.

Frans Drewniak, Ulrik Stylsvig Madsen and Anne Beim

Konceptdiagram

Sammensætning af to typologier

ARKITEKTER

BYGHERRE Konceptdiagram

Villa huset

Sammensætning af to typologier

Konceptdiagram

Sammensætning af to typologier

BEBOERE

Bo

- Mulighed for egen have - Sollys fra flere sider

- Høj bygge - Billigere k

- Høj kvm pris

- Mangel på - Mangel på

KVALITATIVE METODER & DE TRE AKTØRER

Boligblokken

Villa huset

- Høj byggeprocent

- Mulighed for egen have -Villa Sollyshuset fra flere sider

- Billigere kvm pris Boligblokken

- Mangel på udeareal - Høj byggeprocent Mangel - Billigere- kvm prispå sollys

- Høj - Mulighed forkvm egenpris have - Sollys fra flere sider

VILLA TYPOLOGI - Høj kvm pris

STANGBEBYGGELSE - Mangel på udeareal - Mangel på sollys

HLM bebyggelsen af Lacaton & Vasal - Mulighed for egen have - Sollys fra flere sider - Relativ høj byggeprocent - Lav kvm pris

NY TYPOLOGI

HLM bebyggelsen af Lacaton & Vasal - Mulighed for egen have

- Sollys af fraLacaton flere sider& Vasal HLM bebyggelsen - Relativ høj byggeprocent

KONCEPT

- Lav - Mulighed forkvm egenpris have - Sollys fra flere sider - Relativ høj byggeprocent - Lav kvm pris

3

Case / 53 habitations HLM Background and context Our case is found in Saint Nazaire, a relatively small municipality on the French west coast with only 70,000 inhabitants. Located where the Loire opens up to the Atlantic, the city has a strong tradition of fishing and constructing vessels. The city suffered immensely during the Second World War, as it was occupied by the Germans and bombed by the British. It was later rebuilt during the modernistic era but has since suffered several periods of financial difficulties. Today, the city has more or less recovered, with the main industry still being linked to the harbor.

The economic value of the work of Lacaton & Vassal is evident, as Silène returns to the question of price. Tenants do not wish to leave their apartments, as they lack better options in terms of size and price. As we continue to interview tenants, we will however see that the value of their work, when matched with the right tenant, goes beyond just economy.

Client Silène, a public utility company with over 10,000 apartments in the area, is the client behind 53 Habitations HLM. The company approached Lacaton & Vassal because they were able to provide “more surface for the same price”. Though the question of price is intricate and goes beyond square meters.

When comparing with other Silène projects, 53 Habitations HLM turned out to be more expensive than the average project. However, they did achieve as much as 80% more square meters.

Before moving in, Sylvie went through a long application process that lasted over a year. When selected, Sylvie was delighted, as her previous home measured only 55 m2. Now she would have more than twice the floor space for a lower cost, only €480 a month. Sylvie’s family, which also includes a cat, enjoy their new home. It has a spacious terrace facing a green area with large trees.

Sylvie’s furniture is colorful and warm, intentionally placed to break from the industrial frames. She appreciates the winter garden but worries it could turn into storage.

As she lives on the second floor, the climate has so far been pleasant and not too warm. The floor can get cold, but it did not seem to bother the family. She has been in contact with Silène to better understand how to utilize her adjustable apartment, and she often visits Lacaton & Vassal’s website to learn more. It seems Sylvie has already become a “good actor of her home”.

The biggest challenge of the project so far, which was finalized in 2011, has been to find tenants. In the French context, a lack of shutters along with industrial, unfinished materials only appeals to a limited number of tenants. It is indeed a way of living that requires much from its users. In this experiment, as Silène refers to the project, the tenant becomes an “actor of the building, contrary to the trend of making smart buildings that demand nothing from you”.

Aside from the challenges mentioned, the project clearly has some strong points.

Natural light and large spaces demonstrate a method of generosity commonly seen in the work by Lacaton & Vassal. The layering of rooms and climate zones does not only provide thermal and functional flexibility but allows for a gradual transition between interior and exterior.

Contrary to what one may expect of social housing, this project does not have a designated public space. Silène specifically asked the architect not to provide this, as it would increase costs for tenants. One could say that public space has been minimized to allow private space to be maximized.

Single mum, two children In a corner apartment on the second floor lives Sylvie with her two daughters. When we visit them in September, they have only lived there since July.

Old couple Next, we meet with an old couple who has lived here since the project was finished in 2011. Their apartment is situated on the lowest level, with a garden facing the neighboring building.

Upon arrival, we were greeted by a smiling, elderly woman who seemed delighted to show us her home. As the apartment is situated on the ground floor, there is less natural light than in the previously visited apartment but not in an unpleasant way. Because of this, the apartments on the ground floor are supplemented with a garden as a further addition of space.

The couple is content to live on the ground floor, as they can avoid staircases and thereby achieve a higher level of accessibility. They have made small changes to their apartment, such as upgrading the bathroom with an Italian shower and painting the living room ceiling white to give the space a softer atmosphere. The ceiling has a

LEJLIGHED 00 / TOM

BEBOER 01 / MADAME ET MONSIEUR

drawback that is characteristic for most of the apartments: it does not have any sockets, which means they can only use standing lights. In to thesoft bedrooms, semitransparent curtains are hanging en the light and allow curtains are installed to disperse the light and allow privacy privacy from the outside areas.

Thseem e couple well from the outside areas. The couple well seem informed on how toon make the adjustability the apartment. of informed howuse toofmake use of theof adjustability During summer, they typically open up the living room and thewinter apartment.

During summer they typically open garden so that the space is connected all the way upthrough the living room and winter so the space the apartment – one roomgarden as a continuation of the is cases other. In winter, theyway typically don’t use winter garden, connected all the through the the apartment – one as it gets too cold. The rest of the apartment keeps a level room as a continuation the other. In the winter temperature throughout theof year.

they typically don’t use the winter garden, as it gets visit, we also thatthe the floor here is warmer tooDuring cold,ourthough the notice rest of apartment is well compared to the other apartments, probably naturally temperate throughout the year.

During heated due to it being situated on the ground.our visit we also notice the floor here is warmer compared to neighbors, the couple is enthusiastic and theRegarding other apartments, probably naturally heated due points out how well they know one another. In fact, on to almost the situation on the thecouple ground. theground subject every subject livingOn in this floor of apartment the seemcouple delighted.

Each question is met by out a neighbours is enthusiastic and points smile and joyful answer. One can only assume that this how well they knowwho onehave another.

In fact, pleasant old couple, lived here sinceon thealmost start every in this ground floor of thesubject project,the havecouple no plansliving to move. apartment seems delighted. Each question is met by Single mum, one child a smile and joyful answer.

One can only assume that Our last tenant is Samia.

A constructing architect working creative community, in a penthouse thisin apleasant old couple,living which has lived apartment here since together with her son for a little more than 3 years.

After thehaving start of the project, has no plans to move on. visited a few apartments on the lower levels, we are surprised by how different the top floor apartment is.

We enter a room with high wooden ceilings and generous Single mum, one child natural light that illuminates the A whole space. The wooden Our last tenant is Samia. constructing architect ceiling makes it possible to suspend lights and lamps working a creative community, living in a top floor from theinceiling. apartment together with her son for a little more than Samia After enjoyshaving the largevisited spacesa of herapartments apartment ason wellthe 3 years. few as the light and the industrial materials.

She’s aware of lower levels, we are surprised by how different thethetop fact that the materials wouldn’t suit everyone, but for her floor is. We enter a room with high wooden it’s apartment perfect. ceilings and a generous natural light that illuminate to an speak well of the her apartment as we of theSamia wholecontinues space. As example, simple change discuss the plan. She tells us how she enjoys the lack of ceiling material facilitates a possibility lights corridors, as one always passes through of thehaving living room, and lamps in the ceiling. Samia enjoys the large surfaces of her apartment, as well as the light and the industrial

BEBOER 02 / BERNIER SYLVIE

BEBOER 03 /

SAMIA HAMLAOUI

making the apartment lively. The freedom of the apartment and its plan is somehow “forcing” life and activity to appear in largest space of the apartment. itsthe plan is somehow “forcing” life and activity to appear

in the asked largestabout spacenegative of the apartment.

Whenmentions asked about When aspects, Samia negative Samia mentions the lack of room the lack ofaspects room for storage, which may explain why for winter gardens could end up as storage spaces.

This isn’tcould storage, which may explain why winter gardens the case for Samia’s home. The winter garden appears end up as storage space. This isn’t the case for Samia’s as a spacious and bright addition to her living room that home. The garden appears as a spacious continues outwinter onto the balcony.

We notice how she and has a lock on hertobalcony doorroom and she that by a bright addition her living onlyexplains continued someone once tried to break in through the transparent balcony. We notice how she has a lock on her balcony polycarbonate walls. After this experience, she added an door,lock andtoshe that someone tried toabreak extra theexplains walls and luckily hasn’t once experienced in through break-in again.the transparent polycarbonate walls. After this experience she added an extra lock to the walls

We ask Samia about flexibility. We are curious to know and luckily haven’t experienced a break in again. We ask whether her layout changes over the year depending on Samia about flexibility.

We are curious to know seasons, for example in relation to temperature changewhether in the garden. herwinter layout changes through out the year depending

on seasons, for example in relation to the temperature

She tells us that she doesn’t change her furniture or the changeof each in the winter garden. tells us that she activity space depending on She the season.

In fact, doesn’t change heranything furniture orshe thefirst activity she has not changed since moved of in. each The TV depending and Internet on connections in the location space season. Inare fact, shesame has not changed in each apartment, which becomes a parameter for anything since she first moved in. The TV & the Internet living room layout.

sockets are in the same location in each apartment, As an example spaciousfor qualities of herroom apartment, which sets upofa the parameter the living layout. As we told thatofshe a big concert in her room an are example theheld spacious qualities of living her apartment during the summer, welcoming over 60 guests. She we are told that held a big concert managed to do so she by opening up every layerinofher herliving room during overand 60the guests. apartment: the the livingsummer, room, thewelcoming winter garden balcony.

She managed to do so by opening up every layer of her apartment; the living room, the winter garden and Summary finally the balcony.

This project presents a generous framework, allowing

freedom of use in the tenants’ everyday lives . Individuality is expressed where spaces are freed and where they lack Summary given functions, such as winter gardens and balconies.

This project generous framework, allowing These types of presents spaces areausually an addition to the actual freedom and of use in thein everyday life At ofthe thesame tenants. apartment are utilized different ways. time, it is clear that spatial freedom requires commitment Individuality is expressed where spaces are freed and from thethey userslack andgiven communication. where functions, such as winter gardens

and balconies. These types of spaces are usually an addition to the actual apartment, and are utilized in

Drawing Index 04/05.01 Site plan

1:2000

04/05.02 Facade 04/05.03 Isometric 04/05.04 Plan 1:800 04/05.05 Plan 1:800 04/05.06 Facade 04/05.07 Facade 04/05.08 Perspective Section 04/05.09 Plan 04/05.10 Perspective Section 04/05.11 Plan 04/05.12 Perspective Section 04/05.13 Plan

53 habitations HLM

04/05.01

Architects: Lacaton & Vassal Year: 2011 Site plan

1:2000

“Our goal is always to use as little material to build the largest volume possible�

RBONAT

53 Habitations HLM 53 habitations HLM Architects: Lacaton andLacaton Vassal & Vassal Architects: Year: 2011 Year: 2011 Isometric

8

Isometric

03.02 04/05.02

KONSTRUKTION

53 Habitations HLM 53 habitations HLM

03.03 04/05.03

Architects: Architects: Lacaton and Vassal & Vassal Lacaton Year: 2011 Year: 2011 Isometric Isometric

9

N

T4

T2

T3

T2

BEBYGGELSEN

T4

T3 T4

T3

T3 T3

T3

T3

T4

T3

T3

BEBYGGELSEN

53 Habitations HLM 53 habitations HLM

03.04 04/05.04

Architects:Architects: Lacaton and Vassal& Vassal Lacaton Year: 2011Year: 2011 Plan

10

Plan

1:800 1:800

N

T3 T2

T4

BEBYGGELSEN

T3

T2

T3 T3

T3

T3 T3

T3

T2

T3

T3

T3

T3

T3

T2

T3

BEBYGGELSEN

53 Habitations HLM 53 habitations HLM

03.05 04/05.05

Architects:Architects: Lacaton and Vassal & Vassal Lacaton Year: 2011Year: 2011 Plan

Plan

1:800 1:800

11

LSEN

53 Habitations HLM HLM 53 habitations Architects: Lacaton and Vassal& Vassal Architects: Lacaton Year: 2011Year: 2011 ElevationElevation facade

12

03.06 04/05.06

BEBYGGELSEN

53 Habitations HLM 53 habitations HLM

03.07 04/05.07

Architects:Architects: Lacaton and Vassal& Vassal Lacaton Year: 2011Year: 2011 Elevation Elevation

13

LEJLIGHEDSPLAN - 00

“We are happy to live on ground floor, here we do not need the staircases” BEBOER 01 / MADAME ET MONSIEUR Ægtepar Beboer i 7 år Stueetage med have

53 Habitations HLM 53 habitations HLM LEJLIGHEDSPLAN - 00

LEJLIGHEDSPLAN - 00

Architects:Architects: Lacaton and Vassal & Vassal Lacaton Year: 2011 Year: 2011 Elevation Apartment - ground floor

14

03.08 04/05.08

JLIGHEDSPLAN - 00

53 Habitations HLM 53 habitations HLM

03.09 04/05.09

Architects:Architects: Lacaton and Vassal & Vassal Lacaton Year: 2011Year: 2011 Elevation Plan - ground floor

15

LEJLIGHEDSPLAN - 01

“The climate in my winter wintergarden is not too warm, like in the top floor apartments” BEBOER 02 / BERNIER SYLVIE Enlig mor, to børn Beboer i to måneder Hjørnelejlighed, første etage

53 Habitations HLM 53 habitations HLM LEJLIGHEDSPLAN - 01

LEJLIGHEDSPLAN - 01

Architects: Architects: Lacaton and Vassal & Vassal Lacaton Year: 2011 Year: 2011 Elevation Apartment - 1st floor

16

03.10 04/05.10

53 Habitations HLM 53 habitations HLM

03.11 04/05.11

Architects:Architects: Lacaton and Vassal & Vassal Lacaton Year: 2011 Year: 2011

LEJLIGHEDSPLAN - 01

Elevation Plan - 1st floor

17

LEJLIGHEDSPLAN - 02

PLAN 02

“What I like most here is the light, the large spaces and the mix of raw materials” BEBOER 03 / SAMIA HAMLAOUI Enlig mor, et barn Beboer i 3,5 år Højeste etage

53 Habitations HLM 53 habitations HLM PLANER

LEJLIGHEDSPLAN - 02

Architects:Architects: Lacaton and Vassal& Vassal Lacaton Year: 2011Year: 2011 Elevation Apartment - 2nd floor

18

03.12 04/05.12

IGHEDSPLAN - 02

53 Habitations HLM 53 habitations HLM

03.13 04/05.13

Architects:Architects: Lacaton and Vassal & Vassal Lacaton Year: 2011Year: 2011 Elevation Plan - 2nd floor

19

02

01

00

De tre lejligheder

“The tenants are actors of the building qualities, contrary of the trend of making smart buildings that demand nothing from you”

De tre aktører

“When someone moves in, you must explain a lot about how to use the apartment”

“Winter, autumn and spring is reasonable but summer is unbearable; it is too hot”